The acronym SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” These are often called “SLAPP suits” and have become quite the problem for smaller advocate groups and outspoken individuals. SLAPP suits are technically lawsuits, but they are not filed to win. Rather, they are filed to censor plaintiffs’ critics by scaring defendants into lengthy and costly litigation. SLAPP suits are the ultimate example of big-money interests crushing the smaller interest groups that seek to bring down the big boys.

Due to the nefarious nature of SLAPP suits, 28 states to date have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes. These laws aim to limit SLAPP suits either by making them harder to bring in the first place or by cutting them short once they are filed to prevent defendants from having to give up a court battle. While some of these laws are more effective than others, they share the end goal of reducing SLAPP suits.

State Statutes

Most state anti-SLAPP statutes accomplish their goal through a procedural tool allowing defendants to file a special motion at the outset of the case which strikes down the complaint pursuant to requirements listed in the statute. Generally, these requirements focus on the speech at issue. For instance, if the speech was about any forthcoming legislation or other political maneuvers, if the speech was in a public forum and related to matter of public interest, or if the speech related to a public figure, the statute allows the defendant to file the special motion to get rid of the complaint.

States Lacking Statutes

Because not all states have anti-SLAPP laws enacted and there is no current federal anti-SLAPP statute, another problem has emerged: that of “forum-shopping.” Occasionally, plaintiffs have the ability to file a defamation lawsuit in a jurisdiction that does not have an anti-SLAPP statute as an obstacle. This can lead to problems because most of the time, defendants cannot change the venue of the lawsuit and therefore get no protection against the antagonistic lawsuit.

And lack of controlling law isn’t the only obstacle defendants may face: courts have superseded anti-SLAPP statutes using federal law, like copyright law and rules of evidence.

California as a Case Study

The California anti-SLAPP statute was considered one of the weaker state laws. “A search for reported cases on SLAPP litigation in 2009 found 1,386 cases for the State of California alone. The rest of the states combined had about 341, of which Massachusetts accounted for 176.” See, Wikipedia Article, citing Navellier v. Sletten; and California Anti-SLAPP Project www.casp.net. The large volume of cases in California spurred debate about the effectiveness of the anti-SLAPP law in the nation’s most populous state. California then passed two amendments to the law and, thanks to all of that litigation, the state’s courts have created a generous body of case law that has righted the ship. Now California stands as an excellent example of what anti-SLAPP laws can accomplish.

Defamation Attorneys

SLAPP suits and anti-SLAPP laws occupy a convoluted and often inconsistent body of law. It is important to find a good attorney who knows the law and understands how the law operates in cyberspace. If you have been hit with a SLAPP suit, or have been accused of defamation, contact one of our expert Internet Defamation Attorneys at 855-473-8474.

 

Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation: The Current State

Despite repeated Congressional efforts, the United States still lacks a federal anti-SLAPP statute as of 2026. The SPEAK FREE Act and similar bills have been introduced in multiple sessions of Congress but have failed to advance. The absence of a federal statute creates a significant gap in protection: defendants sued in federal court—whether based on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction—cannot rely on state anti-SLAPP statutes if the circuit has held that those statutes conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The D.C. Circuit, in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015), held that the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute’s special motion to dismiss procedure conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and therefore does not apply in federal diversity cases. The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, held in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court. This circuit split leaves defendants’ protection dependent on the jurisdiction where they are sued.

California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute in Practice

California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, is among the broadest and most frequently litigated. Under § 425.16(b)(1), a defendant may file a special motion to strike any cause of action arising from “any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” The statute provides for mandatory attorney fee awards to prevailing defendants—a significant deterrent against SLAPP plaintiffs.

The two-step anti-SLAPP analysis requires the defendant to first show that the challenged claim arises from protected activity, then shifts the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits. This probability standard is a low threshold—essentially a showing that the claim has minimal merit—but many SLAPP complaints cannot clear even this bar.

Anti-SLAPP and Online Speech

Anti-SLAPP statutes have become increasingly important in internet defamation cases, where large organizations sue bloggers, reviewers, and social media users in an attempt to silence criticism. Courts have applied anti-SLAPP statutes to protect online reviews, social media commentary, and blog posts that address matters of public concern. In Yelp Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc., 62 Va. App. 678 (2014), Virginia’s courts considered the scope of anti-SLAPP protection for anonymous online reviews—illustrating how these statutes can shield ordinary consumers from litigation by businesses unhappy with their public image.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides a complementary layer of protection by immunizing platforms like Yelp, Google, and Facebook from liability for user-generated content. However, § 230 protects the platform—not the speaker. The individual who posts allegedly defamatory content must rely on the First Amendment, anti-SLAPP statutes, or substantive defamation defenses to protect themselves.

Defending a SLAPP Suit: Your Options

If you have been served with a defamation lawsuit that appears designed to silence your speech rather than vindicate legitimate legal rights, the first question is whether an anti-SLAPP motion is available in the jurisdiction where the case is filed. If it is, filing the motion early is critical—most anti-SLAPP statutes require the motion to be filed within a specified period after service of the complaint, and staying discovery pending the motion is a key procedural advantage.

Even in jurisdictions without anti-SLAPP statutes, early motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) can dispose of SLAPP-style complaints that fail to plead the elements of defamation with sufficient specificity. The internet defamation attorneys at Revision Legal have experience both defending individuals targeted by SLAPP suits and pursuing legitimate defamation claims on behalf of clients whose reputations have been damaged. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or complete the contact form on this page.

Courts continue to develop anti-SLAPP law in internet defamation contexts. Contact Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 if you face an online defamation claim or a SLAPP suit.