Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was frivolous, entitling the plaintiff to an award of attorney fees. The petition plainly alleged claims based in part (if not completely) on non-protected activity, yet the motion did not identify within each claim the portions of the claim that were allegedly based on protected activity, as is the moving party’s burden in bringing an Anti-SLAPP motion against a mixed cause of action. That plaintiff sought relief allegedly affecting defendant’s future protected activity (namely, an injunction against future disparagement) was irrelevant. What counts for Anti-SLAPP motion purposes is the conduct on which the complaint is based, not the relief it seeks.