Anti-SLAPP Law Explained: Early Dismissal and Fees
Anti-SLAPP law explained: how early dismissal and fee shifting work in California, New York, England and Wales and the EU, and what it means for threats.
An anti-SLAPP law is a procedure that lets a defendant ask a court to end a lawsuit early when the suit targets speech on a public issue, and in many places to recover legal costs if the defendant wins. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. The law does not decide who is right about the facts. It makes the person who sued over public speech show, early and with evidence, that the claim has real substance.
For anyone who has sent a takedown threat or filed a defamation claim over an article, a review, a thread or a post about a public matter, this changes the risk. A weak claim can be tested early, discovery can be paused, and the claimant can end up paying the other side's bills. For anyone who has received such a threat, it is one of the few tools that can shift the pressure back.
This guide reads the rules of four places: California, New York, England and Wales, and the European Union. It is general information, not legal advice. A lawyer in the right jurisdiction decides what applies to your facts, and the deadlines in these laws are short.
- Anti-SLAPP laws add an early step to a lawsuit: the defendant shows the claim targets protected public speech, then the claimant must show real evidence that the claim can succeed.
- The scope differs sharply. California and New York reach a wide range of public-interest speech. England and Wales reach only claims linked to economic crime. The EU directive reaches only cross-border civil cases.
- Fee shifting is the part that changes behavior, and its strength varies: a winning defendant recovers fees and costs on the motion in California, while New York ties fees to a finding of no substantial basis in fact and law.
- A letter is not a lawsuit, but a letter followed by a weak claim over accurate public-interest reporting is exactly the pattern these laws were written for.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f); Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 sections 194 and 195 on legislation.gov.uk; Directive (EU) 2024/1069 on EUR-Lex.
An anti-SLAPP law gives defendants early dismissal and, often, their costs
An anti-SLAPP law adds a fast, evidence-based gate to the start of a case. Without it, a defamation claim usually moves through pleadings, document requests and depositions before a judge tests whether it holds up, and the defendant pays for every step. A claimant with deeper pockets can use that cost as the real remedy, whether or not the claim would ever win.
Related readUAE Defamation Law Online: Claim, Complaint, LimitsThe gate lets the defendant ask for dismissal at the start, usually pauses discovery, and in many places moves the cost of the fight onto a claimant whose claim fails. Each of the four places we read builds these pieces differently.
One point prevents most misunderstandings. These laws are procedures, not licenses: the motion only decides whether the case may proceed. A false statement of fact that really harmed someone can still survive it if the claimant brings the evidence.
We did not read any statute for Australia or its states, Canada and its provinces, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, any other US state, or any other EU member state's national law. If your matter is in one of those places, nothing here tells you what applies. A Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press overview dated April 2022 counted 32 states and the District of Columbia with some form of anti-SLAPP law, with details that vary by state.
The motion works in two steps: protected speech, then evidence
Almost every anti-SLAPP motion we read about runs in two steps, and knowing the steps tells you where a claim is weak. In step one, the defendant shows that the claim arises from speech or petitioning on a public issue, as the statute defines it. In step two, the claimant must show enough evidence that the claim can succeed, or it is dismissed.
The standard in step two is where the statutes differ most: a probability of prevailing in California, a substantial basis in law in New York, more likely than not to succeed at trial in England and Wales (for a narrow class of claims), and "not manifestly unfounded" in the EU directive.
Related readGDPR Right to Erasure Exceptions: When Refusal Is LawfulPractical consequence: the claimant needs the proof early. A claim that depends on discovering evidence from the other side is most exposed at this stage.
California section 425.16 is the broad model
California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is the statute most other discussions start from, and it is broad. The Legislature states that it wants the section construed broadly. The core rule says that a cause of action arising from a person's act in furtherance of speech or petition rights, in connection with a public issue, can be challenged by a special motion to strike. The motion succeeds unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing on the claim. The court looks at the pleadings and at sworn statements for and against.
Subdivision (e) lists four kinds of protected activity: statements before an official proceeding; statements about an issue under review by one; statements in a public place or public forum about an issue of public interest; and other conduct furthering speech or petition rights on a public issue. The last two matter most for reputation disputes, because they cover articles, posts and reviews about public-interest matters.
The motion may be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, and a court may allow a later filing. The hearing is to be set within 30 days of service of the motion, unless the court's docket requires a later date. Filing the motion stops discovery until notice of entry of the ruling, though the court may allow specified discovery on a noticed motion for good cause. A defendant who prevails on the motion recovers attorney's fees and costs, with listed exceptions for certain open-meeting and public-records claims. If the court finds the motion frivolous or solely intended to cause delay, the plaintiff who wins the motion recovers fees and costs under section 128.5. An order granting or denying the motion can be appealed.
Related readDefamation law France: claim, proof and the clockPublic prosecutors' enforcement actions fall outside the section. A separate section, 425.17, was not read for this guide; if the speech is commercial, check it before assuming the motion is available.
We read this text on two code mirrors, because the Legislature's own site could not be loaded for this guide. Check the official text before relying on a subdivision.
New York ties public interest to a broad definition and fees to a weak claim
New York's law is split across Civil Rights Law sections 70-a and 76-a and the motion rule in CPLR 3211(g). It differs from California on how fees are earned and what the claimant must prove.
Section 76-a defines an action involving public petition and participation as a claim based on a communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or on other lawful conduct that furthers free speech or petition rights on such an issue. A communication is any kind of expression, including statements, writings and arguments. Public interest is to be construed broadly and means any subject other than a purely private matter. In such an action, where the truth or falsity of the communication is material to the claim, damages can be recovered only if the plaintiff also proves by clear and convincing evidence that the communication was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was false. That is the actual malice standard, and the statute applies it to claims within section 76-a, not only to those brought by public officials.
Related readGermany defamation online: claims, crime, takedownThe motion rule in CPLR 3211(g) covers a failure-to-state-a-claim motion in a case within section 76-a(1)(a). The court must grant it unless the responding party demonstrates that the claim has a substantial basis in law or a substantial argument for changing existing law. The court considers the pleadings and affidavits, filing the motion stays all discovery until notice of entry of the order, and the motion gets preference in hearing. Limited discovery on the motion's issues is available if a sworn statement shows the claimant cannot present essential facts without it.
Section 70-a is the fee and damages rule. A defendant in such an action may sue the person who brought or continued it. Costs and attorney's fees require a showing, through an adjudication under CPLR 3211(g) or 3212(h), that the action was brought or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law. Other compensatory damages require more: that the action was also brought or continued to harass, intimidate, punish or maliciously inhibit speech, petition or association rights. Punitive damages require that this was its sole purpose. The text of section 70-a sets out all three tiers. A right under the section can be waived only if the waiver is specific.
CPLR 3211(g) does not itself address costs or fees, so in New York winning the motion does not by itself award them. The fee claim runs through section 70-a.
England and Wales has a narrow rule that depends on economic crime
England and Wales added anti-SLAPP provisions in sections 194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. On legislation.gov.uk both sections came into force for their remaining purposes on 18 June 2025 under S.I. 2025/718, and they extend to England and Wales only. We did not read any separate rule for Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Related readIndia Defamation Online: Claim, Clock and TakedownThe definition is the key and it is narrow. Under section 195 a claim is a SLAPP claim only if all four things are true. The claimant's conduct has, or is intended to have, the effect of restraining the defendant's free speech. The information disclosed, or that would be disclosed, relates to economic crime. The disclosure is, or would be, made for a purpose related to the public interest in combating economic crime. And the claimant intends the conduct to cause harassment, alarm, distress, expense or other harm or inconvenience beyond what ordinary litigation involves. The court may consider factors such as whether the claimant's reaction is disproportionate, whether the defendant has fewer resources than another party the claimant could have sued, and whether the claimant failed to follow pre-action protocols, court rules or professional guidance.
Two rules apply once a claim fits. Section 194 required the Civil Procedure Rules to let a court strike out a SLAPP claim before trial if the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed at trial, and the court can raise the point on its own initiative. The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 (S.I. 2025/106) added that ground to CPR 3.4(2). On the costs side, CPR 44.2(9) and (10) provide that in a SLAPP claim the court may not order the defendant to pay the claimant's costs unless the defendant's misconduct in relation to the claim justifies it.
A claim about a restaurant review, a neighbor dispute or a personal rumor is unlikely to fit the definition, because none concerns economic crime. A claim aimed at someone who disclosed such information in the public interest, and meant to exhaust them, might. It is not a general shield for public-interest speech as in California or New York.
Related readDefamation law South Africa: claim, defenses, clockThe EU directive covers cross-border cases and leaves the rest to each state
Directive (EU) 2024/1069 asks every member state to give people who engage in public participation protections against manifestly unfounded claims and abusive court proceedings. It applies to civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications, and the text treats a matter as cross-border unless both parties are domiciled in the court's member state and all other relevant elements sit only there. Criminal, administrative and arbitration matters are excluded.
Public participation means exercising freedom of expression, of the arts and sciences, or of assembly and association, on a matter of public interest. The directive's examples of public interest include the activities of public figures and allegations of corruption or criminal offences. Abusive proceedings do not genuinely assert a right but mainly aim to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. The listed indicators include disproportionate claims, multiple related suits, intimidation and bad-faith procedural tactics.
A court may require a claimant to post security for estimated costs. It may dismiss manifestly unfounded claims at the earliest possible stage, and the claimant bears the burden of proving the claim is well founded and, once early dismissal is sought, must substantiate it enough to show it is not manifestly unfounded. A claimant who brought abusive proceedings can be ordered to pay all recoverable costs, including the defendant's full legal representation costs unless excessive. Courts may impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or equally effective measures. Withdrawing or amending a claim does not remove the defendant's right to seek these remedies.
Member states had to bring the directive into force by 7 May 2026, and we did not read any national implementing law. For an EU matter, the directive tells you what your national law must achieve, not what your national court will do. Find the national statute and the date it applied.
Related readOnline Harassment Laws by Country: Where Each Route LeadsWhich claims risk triggering a motion: a decision table
The table is a screening tool built from the statutes we read, not a prediction. The risk label is the chance that a defendant can credibly bring a motion, not the chance it will win.
| Claim or threat | Where the motion is strongest | Where it is weakest | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim over a news report or investigation of a business or official | California and New York: public interest is plain. EU: cross-border cases. England and Wales: only if economic crime is involved. | England and Wales when no economic crime is alleged | High |
| Claim over a customer review or complaint post | California and New York where the review speaks to a matter of public interest | A private dispute with one customer and no wider interest | Medium |
| Claim over a private message to a few people | Rarely | New York excludes only purely private matters, but a one-to-one message is not a public forum | Low |
| Claim naming a specific false fact with documents to prove it | Step one may be met | Step two: the claimant can show real evidence | Low to medium |
| Several claims against several speakers over the same story | EU indicators of abuse: multiple related suits | Where each claim has its own evidence | High |
| Huge damages demand against an individual | EU indicator: disproportionate claim. England and Wales: resource imbalance factor, if economic crime is involved. | Where a fee provision requires a separate finding, as in New York | High |
| Letter only, no claim filed | No motion exists yet | The statutes we read apply to claims in court | Not yet |
Read the last row with care. None of the provisions we read applied to a letter alone, but a letter that overreaches sits badly beside a claim that follows it. England and Wales lists a claimant's failure to follow pre-action protocols as a factor the court may weigh, and New York's higher damages tiers ask why the action was brought.
If you are the one sending the threat or the claim, check these four things first
A claimant or a person drafting a takedown threat should ask four questions before anything is sent: is the statement a false statement of fact; can I prove it with documents I already hold; is the matter one of public interest; and would I be comfortable with a judge reading this letter as the first exhibit.
If the answer to the first two is no, a claim is the weakest kind to file in a place with an early gate. Two neighboring subjects get only a paragraph here. In general terms, a US defamation claim needs a false statement of fact, publication and fault, and opinion usually defeats it, so step two of the motion tests those elements with the evidence on the table. A cease and desist letter compels nothing, and it works best when accurate, calm and aimed at the party who controls the page.
If the answer to the third question is yes, your risk rises. Accurate reporting on a matter of public interest, such as how a company treats customers, how an official used funds or what a regulator found, is the speech these laws exist to protect, and a claim that tries to remove it is the claim most likely to end with costs against the person who brought it.
Related readCourt order against social media platform, by countryWhat remains legitimate: correcting a false fact with evidence, asking a publisher to fix an error, using a platform's own reporting rules, and sending a measured letter when the statement really is false and the harm is real. None needs a threat that outruns the facts.
If you are the one threatened or sued, take these steps in this order
The first step is to date everything. The California motion window is 60 days from service of the complaint, so the day a claim is served starts a clock. A threatening letter starts no such clock, but it starts the evidence trail.
- Keep every copySave the letter, the envelope or email headers, the statement at issue as it appeared, and the dates you saw each.
- Sort the statementsList each statement the other side objects to, mark which are checkable facts and which are opinion, and note your proof for each fact.
- Check the forum and the dateFind where a claim would be filed and which anti-SLAPP rule, if any, applies there. The statutes differ and some places have none.
- Get local counsel before replyingA short reply can be a good move. A long one can create new problems. Counsel decides the tone, the facts to concede and whether to raise the statute.
- If a claim is served, diary the motion deadlineIn California it is 60 days from service. Elsewhere, ask counsel on day one.
A threat alone is not a reason to take anything down. If the statement contains a real error, correct it openly with a date, which is usually safer than a quiet deletion.
An invented scenario shows how the clock runs in a California-style case
This is an invented scenario with generic parties, built only from the California rules above, to show the order of events. A regional contractor sues a local blogger for defamation over a post that says the contractor took deposits and never finished jobs. The blogger holds signed customer statements and photographs. Assume the post is about a matter of consumer protection that other readers in the area care about, and that the court agrees it is a public issue.
| When | Event | What the rule says |
|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | Complaint served on the blogger | The 60-day window to file the motion starts |
| Days 1 to 20 | Blogger hires counsel and gathers customer statements | Evidence for step two is assembled |
| By Day 60 | Motion to strike filed | Discovery stops until notice of entry of the ruling |
| Within 30 days of service of the motion | Hearing, unless the court's docket requires later | Contractor must show a probability of prevailing with evidence |
| After the ruling | Dismissal with fees, or denial | Either order can be appealed |
If the blogger files on the last day, the hearing would fall at about day 90, absent a docket delay. Assumptions: service on day 0, the motion filed on day 60, and a court able to hear it within 30 days.
If the contractor can show a signed contract, proof of completion and receipts that contradict the post, the motion may fail and the case proceeds. If not, the claim is likely dismissed and the blogger recovers fees. A different path was open from the start: a calm request to correct the specific false detail, with the documents attached.
Related readAustralia defamation online: how the law worksYour next step: sort the statements, then decide the route
Reduce one threat or planned claim to a sheet: the exact statements, the proof for each, the place a claim would be brought, and the date of the first letter or service. That is what a lawyer needs to tell you whether an anti-SLAPP rule applies.
If you have received a threat or a claim, or you are considering sending one, send the dated sheet to a lawyer in the right place before you reply or file. Reputation Partners can review your file in a private audit and tell you which routes are realistic, including when the right answer is to leave a page alone. Request a private audit.
Questions people ask
Does an anti-SLAPP law protect a false statement?
Not as such. The statutes we read test whether the claim has substance, not whether the speech is welcome. In California a claimant who shows a probability of prevailing defeats the motion, and in New York the claimant who proves actual malice by clear and convincing evidence can recover damages. A false and damaging statement made with the required fault can still lead to liability.
Can a cease and desist letter trigger an anti-SLAPP motion?
None of the provisions we read applied to a letter alone: California refers to a cause of action, New York to an action, and the England and Wales rule to a claim. A letter is not a claim. Still, if a claim follows, the letter's content and tone can be shown to the court and may weigh in the assessment of why the case was brought.
Is there a federal anti-SLAPP law in the United States?
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said in April 2022 that Congress had never passed one, and that federal appeals courts disagreed on whether state anti-SLAPP motions apply in federal court. We did not verify the position after that date, so check the law and the court circuit before relying on a state motion in a federal case.
Does the UK have an anti-SLAPP law?
England and Wales has sections 194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in force for their remaining purposes since 18 June 2025, but they apply only to claims that meet a four-part definition including economic crime. It is not a general shield for all public-interest speech. We did not read a rule for Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Can a winning defendant always recover legal fees?
No. California's section 425.16 gives a prevailing defendant fees and costs on the motion. New York requires a finding that the action lacked a substantial basis in fact and law, plus more for other damages. England and Wales limits an order that a defendant pay the claimant's costs in a SLAPP claim, which is not the same as awarding the defendant's costs. The EU directive allows full costs for abusive proceedings.
