SLAPP suits and legal intimidation
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
[edit | edit source]SLAPP suits typically take the form of civil lawsuits claiming one or more of the following:[1]
- 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
[edit | edit source]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.[2][3]
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.[4]
One of the first examples of this to gain notoriety occurred in 2013; the game Day One: Garry's Incident received a highly negative review from reviewer TotalBiscuit, and responded by using a DMCA takedown to remove the video from public view on YouTube.
Major examples
[edit | edit source]- DCS sues small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty
Anti-SLAPP laws
[edit | edit source]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.[5]
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.[6] 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.[7]
In April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive providing protections across EU member states.[8]
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.[1]
See also
[edit | edit source]References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ 1.0 1.1 "Responding to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)". Digital Media Law Project. Archived from the original on 19 Feb 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "Unfiltered: How YouTube's Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2024-09-26. Archived from the original on 16 Feb 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online". Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on 22 Feb 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "How Companies Abuse the DMCA to Silence Negative Reviews". Lumen Database. Archived from the original on 23 Aug 2025. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws". The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 2024-08-18. Archived from the original on 16 Jan 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide". The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 2025-06-01. Archived from the original on 21 Feb 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2025 Report Card". Institute for Free Speech. 2025-10-02. Archived from the original on 21 Feb 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.
- ↑ "Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council". Official Journal of the European Union. 2024-04-11. Archived from the original on 14 Jan 2026. Retrieved 2026-01-14.