Introduction
J.I.G., LLC v. Neugebauer, 2026 WL 2395609 (Tex. App.- Dallas, decided August 17, 2026, no pet. history) is a recent decision from the Dallas Court of Appeals clarifying what is “a matter of public concern” under the latest version of the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
Factual Background
The lawsuit arose out of an investor’s loss of $11,000,000.00 in a start-up company, allegedly induced by material misrepresentations made by the defendant, Toby Neugebauer. In a tit for tat action, Neugebauer brought counterclaims against the investor for alleged defamation, conspiracy to defame, business disparagement, and conspiracy to commit business disparagement.
The investor then moved to dismiss those counterclaims under, inter alia, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Neugebauer filed an untimely response to the motion. The trial court, inexplicably, simply failed to rule on the motion ultimately resulting in the motion being overruled by operation of law.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The court of appeals ruled that the investor’s TCPA motion should have been granted, rendered judgment for the investor on Neugebauer’s counterclaims, and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the investor is entitled to court costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending Neugebauer’s counterclaims.
On appeal, Neugebauer argued that the investor could not rely on a broad “public concern” defense because the TCPA had been amended in 2019 regarding what was a “public concern.” Prior to 2019, the TCPA had an expansive list of “public concerns” including those related to “a good, product, or service in the marketplace.” The 2019 amendments narrowed the list and eliminated the language concerning “a good, product, or service in the marketplace.” Instead, a matter of public concern was statutorily limited to: “(A) a public official, public figure, or other person who has drawn substantial public attention due to the person’s official acts, fame, notoriety, or celebrity; (B) a matter of political, social, or other interest to the community; or (c) a subject of concern to the public”.
The court of appeals rejected this argument. They applied the Supreme Court’s “holistic review of the pleadings” standard and held that the inquiry is “not confined to the precise statutory subsection or legal theory a movant emphasized” in the trial court but rater “the question is whether the pleadings establish, as a matter of law, that the challenged claims fall within the TCPA.”
Applying this standard, the court of appeals, using Neugebauer’s own counterclaim language against him, held that this was not a purely private conversation between private parties but the alleged defamatory statements against Neugebauer “concerned his honesty, business practices, reputation, and fitness to participate in substantial investment-related activities. They were directed to auditors, merger partners, investment bankers, potential investors, reporters and others whose decisions could affect the flow of investment capital and the operation of business enterprises.” Therefore, the alleged defamatory statements concerned “matters of interest to the community and subjects of concern to the public.”
What Businesses and Business Lawyers Should Do Now
The attorneys at the Rogge Dunn Group are well experienced in representing businesses and individuals in complex disputes involving fraud and defamation. If you have questions and need help, assistance, or advice, our team of lawyers are ready and able to help you.