SLAPP suits and legal intimidation - Revision history

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 8 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T07:34:28Z

Added archive URLs for 8 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 23 February 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Common types of SLAPP==		==Common types of SLAPP==
	SLAPP suits typically take the form of civil lawsuits claiming one or more of the following:<ref name="dmlp">{{cite web \|title=Responding to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) \|url=https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps \|publisher=Digital Media Law Project \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		SLAPP suits typically take the form of civil lawsuits claiming one or more of the following:<ref name="dmlp">{{cite web \|title=Responding to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) \|url=https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps \|publisher=Digital Media Law Project \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260219084541/https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps \|archive-date=19 Feb 2026}}</ref>
	* '''Defamation''' (libel or slander) – the most common basis for a SLAPP suit, alleging that published criticism injured the plaintiff's reputation		* '''Defamation''' (libel or slander) – the most common basis for a SLAPP suit, alleging that published criticism injured the plaintiff's reputation
	* '''Tortious interference''' with contract or business relations – claiming the defendant's statements interfered with the plaintiff's business relationships		* '''Tortious interference''' with contract or business relations – claiming the defendant's statements interfered with the plaintiff's business relationships
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Sub-SLAPP actions==		==Sub-SLAPP actions==
	In recent years, the spreading of consumer journalism to [[Youtube]] and other centrally hosted content-sharing platforms has enabled the effective use of pre-lawsuit actions when aiming to suppress criticism of poor products or anti-consumer practices. In order to maintain their 'safe harbor' status, where the content-sharing platform is not held legally liable for copyright infringement by its users, the DMCA effectively requires the content platform to promptly comply with all DMCA takedown requests, and only spend time assessing the validity of the request once the allegedly offending content has already been removed from public view.<ref name="eff">{{cite web \|title=Unfiltered: How YouTube's Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online \|url=https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online \|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|date=2024-09-26 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref><ref name="dmca512">{{cite web \|title=17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online \|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 \|publisher=Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		In recent years, the spreading of consumer journalism to [[Youtube]] and other centrally hosted content-sharing platforms has enabled the effective use of pre-lawsuit actions when aiming to suppress criticism of poor products or anti-consumer practices. In order to maintain their 'safe harbor' status, where the content-sharing platform is not held legally liable for copyright infringement by its users, the DMCA effectively requires the content platform to promptly comply with all DMCA takedown requests, and only spend time assessing the validity of the request once the allegedly offending content has already been removed from public view.<ref name="eff">{{cite web \|title=Unfiltered: How YouTube's Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online \|url=https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online \|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|date=2024-09-26 \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260216014042/https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online \|archive-date=16 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref name="dmca512">{{cite web \|title=17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online \|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 \|publisher=Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222103559/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 \|archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref>


	This "takedown unless contested" policy is dependent upon companies acting with integrity, only sending notices when they are confident their copyright has been infringed upon. However, this system has been widely abused to suppress legitimate criticism.<ref name="lumen">{{cite web \|title=How Companies Abuse the DMCA to Silence Negative Reviews \|url=https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797 \|publisher=Lumen Database \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		This "takedown unless contested" policy is dependent upon companies acting with integrity, only sending notices when they are confident their copyright has been infringed upon. However, this system has been widely abused to suppress legitimate criticism.<ref name="lumen">{{cite web \|title=How Companies Abuse the DMCA to Silence Negative Reviews \|url=https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797 \|publisher=Lumen Database \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250823194336/https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797 \|archive-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

	One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game [[Wikipedia:Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident\|Day One: Garry's Incident]] received a highly negative review from reviewer [[wikipedia:TotalBiscuit\|TotalBiscuit]], and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.		One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game [[Wikipedia:Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident\|Day One: Garry's Incident]] received a highly negative review from reviewer [[wikipedia:TotalBiscuit\|TotalBiscuit]], and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.
Line 24:		Line 24:
	==Anti-SLAPP laws==		==Anti-SLAPP laws==

	To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260116183526/https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|archive-date=16 Jan 2026}}</ref>

	As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06-01 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06-01 \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260221145258/https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|archive-date=21 Feb 2026}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260221013708/https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|archive-date=21 Feb 2026}}</ref>

	In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260114192436/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|archive-date=14 Jan 2026}}</ref>

	Some states also allow "SLAPPback" suits, where defendants who have been hit with a SLAPP suit can file a counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process.<ref name="dmlp" />		Some states also allow "SLAPPback" suits, where defendants who have been hit with a SLAPP suit can file a counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process.<ref name="dmlp" />

Mr Pollo at 17:29, 23 January 2026

2026-01-23T17:29:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 23 January 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06-01 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

Keith: made it a proper article and removed stub notice

2026-01-14T13:13:21Z

made it a proper article and removed stub notice

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 14 January 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[StubNotice]]~~
	A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a lawsuit filed with the primary intent of suppressing public discussion of, or exposure to, a specific view. In a consumer context, this often means taking legal action to suppress poor reviews of a product, or prevent open discussion of anti-consumer activity by a large company.		A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a lawsuit filed with the primary intent of suppressing public discussion of, or exposure to, a specific view. In a consumer context, this often means taking legal action to suppress poor reviews of a product, or prevent open discussion of anti-consumer activity by a large company.

	==Common types of SLAPP==		==Common types of SLAPP==
			SLAPP suits typically take the form of civil lawsuits claiming one or more of the following:<ref name="dmlp">{{cite web \|title=Responding to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) \|url=https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps \|publisher=Digital Media Law Project \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>
			* '''Defamation''' (libel or slander) – the most common basis for a SLAPP suit, alleging that published criticism injured the plaintiff's reputation
			* '''Tortious interference''' with contract or business relations – claiming the defendant's statements interfered with the plaintiff's business relationships
			* '''Intentional infliction of emotional distress'''
			* '''Invasion of privacy'''
			* '''Conspiracy''' – often naming unspecified "John Does" as co-conspirators

			==Sub-SLAPP actions==
			In recent years, the spreading of consumer journalism to [[Youtube]] and other centrally hosted content-sharing platforms has enabled the effective use of pre-lawsuit actions when aiming to suppress criticism of poor products or anti-consumer practices. In order to maintain their 'safe harbor' status, where the content-sharing platform is not held legally liable for copyright infringement by its users, the DMCA effectively requires the content platform to promptly comply with all DMCA takedown requests, and only spend time assessing the validity of the request once the allegedly offending content has already been removed from public view.<ref name="eff">{{cite web \|title=Unfiltered: How YouTube's Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online \|url=https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online \|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|date=2024-09-26 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref><ref name="dmca512">{{cite web \|title=17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online \|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 \|publisher=Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	~~==Sub-SLAPP actions==~~
	~~In recent years~~, ~~the spreading of consumer journalism to [[Youtube]] and other centrally hosted content-sharing platforms~~ has ~~enabled the effective use of pre-lawsuit actions when aiming~~ to suppress criticism ~~of poor products or anti-consumer practices~~. ~~In order to maintain their 'safe harbor' status, where the content-sharing platform is not held legally liable for copyright infringement by its users,~~ the DMCA ~~effectively requires the content platform~~ to ~~promptly comply with all DMCA takedown requests, and only spend time assessing the validity of the request once the allegedly offending content has already been removed from public view~~.		This "takedown unless contested" policy is dependent upon companies acting with integrity, only sending notices when they are confident their copyright has been infringed upon. However, this system has been widely abused to suppress legitimate criticism.<ref name="lumen">{{cite web \|title=How Companies Abuse the DMCA to Silence Negative Reviews \|url=https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797 \|publisher=Lumen Database \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game [[Wikipedia:Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident\|Day One: Garry's Incident]] received a highly negative review from reviewer [[wikipedia:TotalBiscuit\|TotalBiscuit]], and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.		One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game [[Wikipedia:Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident\|Day One: Garry's Incident]] received a highly negative review from reviewer [[wikipedia:TotalBiscuit\|TotalBiscuit]], and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.
Line 13:		Line 20:
	==Major examples==		==Major examples==

	- [[DCS sues ~~Small~~ YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty]]		- [[DCS sues small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty]]

	==Anti-SLAPP laws==		==Anti-SLAPP laws==

			To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

			As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

			In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

			Some states also allow "SLAPPback" suits, where defendants who have been hit with a SLAPP suit can file a counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process.<ref name="dmlp" />
			==See also==
			* [[List of anti-consumer SLAPP lawsuits]]

			==References==
			{{reflist}}

			[[Category:Theme]]

Keith: getting the stub uploaded. will continue article development later today

2026-01-14T11:11:15Z

getting the stub uploaded. will continue article development later today

New page

[[StubNotice]]
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a lawsuit filed with the primary intent of suppressing public discussion of, or exposure to, a specific view. In a consumer context, this often means taking legal action to suppress poor reviews of a product, or prevent open discussion of anti-consumer activity by a large company.

==Common types of SLAPP==

==Sub-SLAPP actions==
In recent years, the spreading of consumer journalism to [[Youtube]] and other centrally hosted content-sharing platforms has enabled the effective use of pre-lawsuit actions when aiming to suppress criticism of poor products or anti-consumer practices. In order to maintain their 'safe harbor' status, where the content-sharing platform is not held legally liable for copyright infringement by its users, the DMCA effectively requires the content platform to promptly comply with all DMCA takedown requests, and only spend time assessing the validity of the request once the allegedly offending content has already been removed from public view.

One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game [[Wikipedia:Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident|Day One: Garry's Incident]] received a highly negative review from reviewer [[wikipedia:TotalBiscuit|TotalBiscuit]], and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.

==Major examples==

- [[DCS sues Small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty]]

==Anti-SLAPP laws==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 23 January 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		To protect freedom of speech, many jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws. These laws typically allow a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If they fail to meet this burden, their claim is dismissed and they may be required to pay the defendant's legal costs.<ref name="rcfp">{{cite web \|title=Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2024-08-18 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		As of 2025, 38 US states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes, with coverage continuing to expand. California was the first state to enact such a law in 1992.<ref name="rcfp-guide">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide \|url=https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/ \|publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press \|date=2025-06-01 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref> The Uniform Law Commission adopted a model anti-SLAPP statute (the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) in 2020, which has since been adopted in various forms by multiple states.<ref name="ifs">{{cite web \|title=Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card \|url=https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-report/ \|publisher=Institute for Free Speech \|date=2025-10-02 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

	In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>		In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.<ref name="eu-directive">{{cite web \|title=Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj \|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union \|date=2024-04-11 \|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>