The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff its attorney fees in opposing defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Plaintiff’s claim arose from false representations the defendant developer made to the Rocklin City Council about his ability to develop a financially viable family theme park in the Rocklin Quarry. Though the representations were made in an official proceeding, they were not protected speech because they fell within the CCP 425.17(c) exemption for commercial speech. Defendant unconvincingly argued that the CCP 425.17(d)(2) exception to the commercial speech exemption applied because the theme park had artistic characteristics. The court held that no reasonable attorney could think that a theme park was a work of art within the section’s meaning. The decision also rejects the defendant’s argument that an Anti-SLAPP motion cannot be deemed frivolous unless there is a prior published appellate opinion holding against the defendant’s argument for Anti-SLAPP protection.