What Is a SLAPP Lawsuit and Why Does It Happen?

Powerful individuals, corporations, and even government-adjacent organizations sometimes use civil litigation as a weapon rather than a remedy. When someone publicly criticizes a developer, posts a bad review of a local business, or testifies at a public hearing, the target of that speech may respond not by correcting the record, but by filing a lawsuit.

These lawsuits frequently arrive dressed as defamation claims, nuisance claims, or business interference complaints. The legal label matters less than the intent. The goal is to impose enough legal costs on the critic that speaking out no longer feels worth it.

California lawmakers recognized this pattern and passed the Anti-SLAPP statute to address it directly. The law creates a fast-track mechanism to dismiss meritless claims before they consume years of your life and thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Real example: A homeowner who spoke against a proposed development at a planning commission meeting is later sued for defamation by the developer. Under California Anti-SLAPP law, that homeowner may qualify for early dismissal of the claim, plus recovery of attorney fees.

How California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 Works

The California Anti-SLAPP statute allows a defendant to file a special motion to strike the complaint, typically within 60 days of being served. This motion asks the court to throw out the lawsuit before the expensive discovery phase even begins.

The court applies a two-part analysis to decide whether the motion should be granted.

Step One: Is the Claim Based on Protected Activity?

The defendant must first show that the lawsuit arises from activity protected under the statute. This includes statements made in public forums, communications made in connection with official government proceedings, and speech on issues of public interest.

Examples of protected activity include:

• Writing or publishing a consumer review of a product or service
• Speaking at a city council, school board, or planning commission meeting
• Circulating a petition or organizing community opposition to a project
• Reporting on government conduct as a journalist or private citizen
• Filing a complaint with a regulatory agency

Step Two: Can the Plaintiff Prove Their Claim Has Merit?

Once the defendant clears the first hurdle, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. They must present actual admissible evidence showing a reasonable probability that they will prevail on the merits. Vague allegations are not enough. The plaintiff must put real evidence on the table.

If they cannot do that, the court dismisses the lawsuit. The defendant then has the right to recover attorney fees and costs from the plaintiff.

Important deadline: In most cases, the motion to strike must be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint. Courts can grant extensions, but waiting too long can cost you this powerful protection. If you have been sued and believe your speech may be protected, contact an attorney promptly.

What Happens After You File a Motion to Strike?

Filing an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike triggers an automatic stay of all discovery. That means the plaintiff cannot force you to sit for depositions, hand over documents, or respond to interrogatories while the motion is pending. This alone provides significant financial relief for defendants.

The court must schedule a hearing within 30 days of filing, though congested court calendars sometimes require extensions. After hearing argument, the judge rules based on the written submissions and oral argument presented.

If You Win the Motion

The lawsuit is dismissed. The plaintiff is required by statute to pay your reasonable attorney fees and costs. This mandatory fee shifting is a deliberate policy choice. California wants to make clear that weaponizing litigation against protected speech has real financial consequences.

If You Lose the Motion

The case proceeds. However, California law grants defendants an immediate right to appeal a denied Anti-SLAPP motion. That appeal does not wait for the trial to conclude. The automatic discovery stay generally remains in effect during the appeal, which provides continued protection while the appellate court reviews the decision.

Appellate courts review Anti-SLAPP rulings independently, without deferring to the trial court's interpretation. This de novo review gives defendants a genuine second look at the merits of their motion.

Who Is Protected Under California Anti-SLAPP Law?

The statute covers a wide range of people who speak out on public issues. California courts have applied these protections in cases involving:

• Consumers who post negative reviews on platforms like Yelp or Glassdoor
• Residents who oppose development projects or zoning changes
• Employees who report workplace misconduct to government agencies
• Journalists and bloggers covering matters of community concern
• Homeowners who criticize their HOA boards publicly
• Activists and advocacy organizations engaging in public campaigns

Protection does not depend on whether the statement was popular, flattering, or entirely accurate. It depends on whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern and whether it occurred in an appropriate forum.

What Falls Outside the Statute's Protection?

California law includes important exceptions that prevent businesses from abusing Anti-SLAPP protections to escape legitimate accountability.

Section 425.17 limits the statute's application in certain situations. Businesses generally cannot invoke Anti-SLAPP protections to defend against consumer lawsuits targeting false advertising or deceptive marketing. If a company makes factual product claims to drive sales and those claims are false, consumers retain the right to sue without facing an early dismissal motion.

Lawsuits brought solely in the public interest are also exempt if the plaintiff seeks relief that benefits the general public and seeks no financial recovery for themselves personally. This preserves the ability of advocacy groups and public interest organizations to hold corporations and governments accountable.

Note for businesses: If your company is facing a lawsuit you believe is a SLAPP, or if you are a business defendant trying to invoke these protections, the commercial speech exception requires careful analysis. An attorney experienced in California Anti-SLAPP litigation can help you assess whether the statute applies to your situation.

SLAPPback Lawsuits: Holding Abusive Plaintiffs Accountable

Winning an Anti-SLAPP motion can be the beginning, not the end, of your legal remedies. California allows defendants who prevail to pursue a separate lawsuit against the original plaintiff for malicious prosecution. This is sometimes called a SLAPPback action.

To succeed in a SLAPPback, the defendant turned plaintiff must show that the original lawsuit lacked probable cause and was filed with malice. If successful, the SLAPPback can result in compensatory and punitive damages, sending a clear message that litigation abuse carries serious consequences.

These cases are fact-intensive and must typically wait until all appeals of the original dismissal are resolved. But for clients who have suffered real harm from a bad-faith lawsuit, a SLAPPback can provide meaningful financial recovery and a measure of justice.

Practical Steps If You Think You Are Facing a SLAPP Lawsuit

If you have been served with a lawsuit and believe it targets something you said or wrote in a public context, here is what to do:

1. Do not respond to the complaint on your own. The 60-day window to file an Anti-SLAPP motion runs from the date of service. Missing that window limits your options significantly.
2. Document the context of your speech. Save copies of any reviews you posted, public comments you made, petitions you signed, or communications you sent that may have prompted the lawsuit.
3. Consult a California litigation attorney promptly. The analysis of whether a claim qualifies for Anti-SLAPP protection is nuanced and depends on the specific facts of your case.
4. Preserve your financial records. If you prevail on the motion, the court will award attorney fees. Detailed records of your legal expenses support a stronger fee award.

Kimura London & White LLP: Experienced in California Anti-SLAPP Defense

Being sued for something you said, wrote, or advocated for publicly is a disorienting and frightening experience. The costs mount quickly. The uncertainty is real. But California law gives you tools to fight back, and Kimura London & White LLP knows how to use them.

Our litigation team has experience analyzing Anti-SLAPP motions, navigating the two-prong test, and pursuing fee awards on behalf of clients who were targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights. We work with individuals, journalists, advocacy organizations, and businesses throughout California.

If you have been served with a lawsuit you believe is designed to silence you rather than right a wrong, we encourage you to reach out. The sooner you get legal counsel involved, the more options you have.

Contact Kimura London & White LLP to schedule a consultation. We represent clients facing SLAPP lawsuits and Anti-SLAPP motion to strike proceedings throughout California.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Kimura London & White LLP. If you have been served with legal process, please consult a licensed California attorney about the specific facts of your situation.