When people speak publicly to criticize persons or businesses, the persons or businesses criticized sometimes respond by filing a lawsuit for defamation, libel, disparagement, or another tort (wrongful act). These lawsuits are often directly or indirectly intended to intimidate and silence critics—and to discourage others from making critical statements—by punishing the speaker with the cost and burden of defending a lawsuit. These retaliatory and speech-chilling lawsuits are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

To combat SLAPP lawsuits, many state legislatures have enacted laws (statutes) designed to protect citizens who petition their government or speak on matters of public concern from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to intimidate or silence them. The statutory protection consists of a special motion for expedited consideration of any suit that appears to stifle the defendant’s communication on a matter of public concern.

The purpose of these anti-SLAPP laws is to identify and quickly dispose of lawsuits that seek to chill the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association—not to dismiss legitimate lawsuits with merit. To accomplish its purpose, anti-SLAPP statutes usually include an expedited process in which the judge must review the pleadings—the plaintiff’s complaint or petition and the defendant’s answer—and a limited amount of evidence within a short time after the lawsuit is filed, and determine whether the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Anti-SLAPP statutes vary from state to state, but often include provisions that allow or require a defendant who successfully moves for the dismissal of a SLAPP lawsuit to recover attorney fees, costs of court, and expenses from the plaintiff.

In California, the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute is a legal mechanism designed to quickly end meritless lawsuits filed against individuals or organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights on matters of public concern. Codified in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, the law allows defendants to file a special motion to strike a complaint that is deemed to be a SLAPP. The court then evaluates the motion, often within 30 to 60 days, to determine if the plaintiff's claim arises from protected activity and if the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the claim. If the court finds the lawsuit to be a SLAPP, it will be dismissed. Additionally, the statute typically mandates that a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs from the plaintiff. This serves as a deterrent against the filing of lawsuits intended to suppress free speech and public participation.