Taking a case to court in the United States is supposed to provide a fair and equitable means of interpreting the law and settling disputes. These noble intentions can prove insufficient when one side has more resources. Forcing their opponents to deal with groundless or frivolous lawsuits can overwhelm or bully their foe out of a fair trial.
To counter this tactic, more than two-thirds of U.S. states have adopted some form of anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP) statutes. These are designed to stop the use of the legal system to intimidate or have an undue influence over free speech.
With a state Senate bill moving to the state House floor, Idaho is poised to become the newest state with an anti-SLAPP statute. However, it's not a done deal yet.
Anti-SLAPP Fight
Anti-SLAPP suits are designed to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). A business or wealthy individual may file a "SLAPP" lawsuit when public speech accuses them of some kind of transgression. Usually, the business will respond by filing a suit alleging:
- Business interference
- Conspiracy
- Defamation
- Libel
Examples of this can include an online review that alleges that a product is dangerous or doesn't work as promised. Of course, if the company can prove the author was guilty of any of the above, they can win the case and protect their reputation.
However, SLAPP suits are open to becoming a form of abusive litigation. A company with a legal team on retainer and healthy financial backing can use a SLAPP suit to bully or intimidate its critics, regardless of the truth. The point of the lawsuit is not to win — it's to cause the opposing party to spend money.
Even if the company's accusations are baseless, the cost of trying to fight a business with much deeper resources can act as a deterrent. The company can file a suit it knows has no chance of winning in court to take advantage of the financial inequality.
This is where anti-SLAPP statutes can act as a shield for the little guy. A successful anti-SLAPP ruling can force the company to pay the legal fees owed by the target of its lawsuit. In some jurisdictions such as New York, this is automatic.
In addition, a person who won an anti-SLAPP suit has an easier route to suing the company that brought the suit for malicious prosecution. There's no guarantee of success, but the decision may improve their chances.
Resolution Within 180 Days in Idaho
Idaho Senate Bill Number 1001 is sponsored by State Senator Brian Lenney, who had a similar attempt die on the Senate floor in 2024. Trumpeted as a tool for the courts, the proposed anti-SLAPP law streamlines the process of battling meritless cases.
If passed by the Idaho House and signed by the governor, a person has 60 days from being served a complaint to file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the action. The court then has 60 days to file a hearing on the motion. A ruling is required within 60 days after that. Dismissing a lawsuit under an anti-SLAPP lawsuit doesn't exonerate the company from responsibility for the legal fees of those it accused.
Previous cases in Idaho involving anti-SLAPP suits operated at the federal level. For example, in 2001 Idaho-based company Medinex alleged defamation, wrongful interference with a prospective economic advantage, and tortious interference with a business relationship against 14 John Does who posted criticism of the company. They filed in federal court in California but dismissed the suit before there was a hearing when an organization counter-filed to protect the accused.
There's no guarantee the law will pass in Idaho, so stay tuned. A bill was also introduced in Congress to strengthen anti-SLAPP protections at the federal level in December.
Related Resources
Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics (FindLaw's Torts and Personal Injury Law)
The First Amendment (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Section)
3 Things To Know About SLAPP Suits (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
