John David Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, Llc, 547 S.W.3d 890

Starside Custom Builders (successor to Bentley Premier Builders) sued homeowner John Adams alleging defamation (after earlier business-disparagement claims) arising from a 2014 blog and a March 18, 2015 email about neighborhood common-area tree clearing, alleged criminality, and developer/HOA misconduct.
Adams moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing his communications were an exercise of free speech "in connection with a matter of public concern."
The trial court did not rule within the statutory period, so the TCPA motion was deemed denied; Adams appealed the denial.
The court of appeals held Adams failed to show his statements related to a "matter of public concern," noting the statements did not expressly mention Starside.
The Texas Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the communications fall within the TCPA definition of "exercise of the right of free speech" (i.e., communications "in connection with a matter of public concern").
The Supreme Court concluded the blog and email related to Starside’s services in the marketplace and to community/environmental well-being, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for further TCPA determinations (prima facie elements and defenses).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Starside)	Defendant's Argument (Adams)	Held
Whether Adams’s statements relate to a "matter of public concern" under the TCPA	Statements did not mention Starside and thus fall outside TCPA protection	Statements concerned developer/HOA conduct, services in the marketplace, and community/environmental well-being, so they are matters of public concern	Held: Yes — statements relate to services in the marketplace and community/environmental well-being and are protected under the TCPA
Whether Adams preserved argument that statements implicated community/environmental well-being	Argues Adams waived these grounds by not raising them sufficiently below	Adams argued public concern at the hearing (referencing environmental/community well-being); TCPA review is pleadings-focused so preservation requirement should not bar review	Held: Adams adequately raised public-concern grounds; court of appeals applied too strict an error-preservation rule
Procedural consequence: whether TCPA dismissal was required and next steps	Starside contends dismissal improper because TCPA inapplicable	Adams sought dismissal under TCPA; if initial burden met, trial court must proceed to evaluate prima facie elements and defenses	Held: Adams met initial TCPA burden; reversed court of appeals and remanded for determination of Starside’s prima facie case and any defenses under TCPA

Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (de novo review and TCPA framework)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017) (TCPA inquiry into whether communications concern public matter)
TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (statutory-definition construction rules)
Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2017) (when pleadings clearly show TCPA coverage, defendant’s initial burden is satisfied)
Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 446 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. 2014) (appellate construction of preserved issues; parties may construct new arguments supporting properly preserved issues)
Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2011) (preference for adjudication on the merits over procedural defaults)