How do courts review an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion?

Here, the trial court determined that defendants failed to meet their initial burden of showing that the subject Internet advertisements arose from protected speech. We independently review the trial court's order denying defendants' anti-SLAPP motion. (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1055, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 128 P.3d 713.) In our evaluation of the trial court's order, we consider the pleadings and the supporting and opposing affidavits filed by the parties. We do not weigh credibility or determine the weight of the evidence; rather, we accept as true the evidence favorable to plaintiffs and evaluate defendants' evidence only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by plaintiffs as a matter of law. (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 325, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2.) In addition, we may consider documents properly subject to judicial notice that help provide a complete context of the case, even if the documents were not before the trial court when it ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Id . at p. 306, fn. 2, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2.)