What is Anti-SLAPP?

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). These are lawsuits often filed by powerful individuals or companies to intimidate, censor, or punish people who speak out on public issues—such as critics, journalists, whistleblowers, or activists—by burdening them with costly and time-consuming legal battles.

Key Features of Anti-SLAPP Laws:

  • Early Dismissal: They allow defendants to quickly ask the court to dismiss a meritless case that targets protected speech or petitioning activity.

  • Stay of Discovery: In many jurisdictions, discovery is paused while the anti-SLAPP motion is pending, saving time and money.

  • Attorney's Fees: If successful, the defendant may be entitled to recover legal fees from the plaintiff.

  • Protected Activities: These typically include speech on matters of public concern, statements made in government proceedings, or petitioning the government.

Why It Matters:

Without anti-SLAPP laws, individuals could be deterred from speaking out due to fear of litigation, even if their statements are truthful or legally protected.

Varies by Jurisdiction:

Anti-SLAPP protections vary widely by state.

  • California and New York have strong anti-SLAPP statutes.

  • Some states have weak or no anti-SLAPP protections.

  • There is currently no federal anti-SLAPP statute, though one has been proposed.

 Protecting Online Speech and Reviews

Client: Small Business Customer
Issue: Sued over a Google review and a canceled $500 payment

Our client left a brief Google review expressing dissatisfaction with services provided by a professional firm. The review contained only the client’s personal opinions—no factual assertions or false statements.

Despite this, the firm sued our client for defamation and breach of contract, seeking damages far exceeding the original service cost (under $500). The defamation claim centered entirely on the review, even though it contained no materially false statements—only protected opinion under New York’s Anti-SLAPP laws.

The breach of contract claim was equally flawed. The plaintiff had mailed critical documents to an incorrect address—despite our client having provided the correct one. When the service failed to reach our client, they reasonably canceled the payment. The plaintiff attempted to frame this as a breach, despite their own error in delivery.

We filed for dismissal under New York's updated anti-SLAPP statute, asserting that:

  • The review was protected opinion on a matter of public concern.

  • The plaintiff’s claims lacked a substantial basis in fact or law.

Outcome:
The breach of contract $500 claim was pushed down to the civil. We in turn appealed the denial of our fees pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP statute because the plaintiff amended the complaint before our motion to dismiss was heard.