In Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, concluded that "illegal as a matter of law" refers to only criminal acts. In that case, the plaintiff contended that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable because the defendant "company engaged in statutorily prohibited conduct when it accessed the MLW "Megan's Law" Web site, and sold information disclosed on the MLW to its clients." (Id. at p. 1653.) The appellate court rejected the claim. It explained: "Our reading of Flatley leads us to conclude that the Supreme Court's use of the phrase 'illegal' was intended to mean criminal, and not merely violative of a statute. First, the court in Flatley discussed the attorney's underlying conduct in the context of the Penal Code's criminalization of extortion. Second, a reading of Flatley to push any statutory violation outside the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute would greatly weaken the constitutional interests which the statute is designed to protect. . . . A plaintiff's complaint always alleges a defendant engaged in illegal conduct in that it violated some common law standard of conduct or statutory prohibition, giving rise to liability, and we decline to give plaintiffs a tool for avoiding the application of the anti-SLAPP statute merely by showing any statutory violation." (Id. at p. 1654.)