The gold standard: Strong anti-SLAPP statutes protect a wide spectrum of speech.

HB 1466: Unlike PA’s current and limited anti-SLAPP statute, HB 1466 broadly protects the “right to exercise the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, and the rights to assemble and petition the government.”

HB 1466 also protects communication in governmental proceedings and communication about an issue under consideration in governmental proceedings.

The gold standard: Filing an anti-SLAPP motion should automatically halt discovery and all other proceedings until the court rules on the motion. Discovery, which includes document production and depositions, imposes expensive and invasive burdens on defendants. Instructing courts to rule promptly on an anti-SLAPP motion minimizes the cost of meritless lawsuits that harm free expression rights.

HB 1466: Upon filing an anti-SLAPP motion, other proceedings are stayed, including discovery and the moving party’s obligation to file a responsive pleading (if none has been filed), with limited exceptions.

The gold standard: When responding to an anti-SLAPP motion, the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff to substantiate their claims and demonstrate that they can overcome any applicable First Amendment protection at an early stage of the litigation. Alternatively, defendants could win their anti-SLAPP motion by showing that the plaintiff failed to state or support a claim. If the court approves the anti-SLAPP motion, the case should be dismissed.

HB 1466 allows anti-SLAPP motions to be filed early in the litigation process. Courts must expedite a hearing on the motion unless an exception applies. HB 1466 would also require courts to rule on the motion on an expedited basis.

The gold standard: Strong anti-SLAPP statutes reduce the coercive and punitive nature of litigation by providing the defendant with the right to immediately appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion. This is important because lower courts can err in judgment, and a successful appeal of a ruling denying an anti-SLAPP motion can avoid an expensive and stressful trial that would burden a speaker’s First Amendment rights.

HB 1466: Any order determining whether a person is immune from suit is immediately appealable under HB 1466.

The gold standard: Strong anti-SLAPP statutes require the court to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant. This is a vital deterrent against SLAPP lawsuits. Without an award, a defendant might win the lawsuit, but still suffer financial devastation from costs owed to their lawyers. Importantly, such fee-shifting also enables more attorneys to represent those with limited means fighting a SLAPP.

HB 1466 awards attorney fees, court costs, and expenses of litigation to anyone forced to defend against a meritless claim arising from their exercise of protected public expression. The award is mandatory, which will help deter parties from filing SLAPPs in the first place.

Additionally, HB 1466 doesn’t tie these awards to a particular court procedure. This means that the bill’s fee-shifting provision should apply in both state and federal courts.

The gold standard: Strong anti-SLAPP statutes instruct judges to read the statute broadly and/or liberally to protect free expression rights.

HB 1466 requires that its provisions be “broadly construed and applied to defend and enhance protected public expression.”

Although most states have adopted an anti-SLAPP law, these laws vary greatly from state to state. This lack of uniformity leads to “litigation tourism,” a type of forum shopping by which a plaintiff chooses to bring a lawsuit in a state without strong anti-SLAPP protections.

Because HB 1466 is modeled on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Pennsylvania’s law will contribute to greater uniformity across the states, which serves to expand protections for people no matter where they live.