California Anti-SLAPP Project


California Statutes

[Updated October 9, 2005]


Code of Civil Procedure sec. 425.16

California's anti-SLAPP statute provides for a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition and free speech. The statute was first enacted in 1992. See Cases Applying the Anti-SLAPP Statute.

History of Statute

1992 -- For a list of organizations and newspapers that supported enactment of the original statute, see Supporters of 1992 Anti-SLAPP Bill.

1993 -- The statute was amended to require award of costs and attorney's fees to the plaintiff if the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay.

1997 -- The statute was amended in light of appellate court opinions that had narrowly construed application of the statute to disputes involving matters of "public interest". In amending the statute the legislature clarified its intent that any conduct in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech is protected from civil liability. See Senate Bill 1296.

1999 -- Under the original statute, a defendant whose special motion to strike a complaint was denied could challenge the denial only through a petition for a writ in the Court of Appeal. Writs are discretionary, disfavored, and rarely successful. If, however, a plaintiff's complaint were dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike, the plaintiff was able to appeal the dismissal immediately. Thus, the statute was amended to give the SLAPP target -- the person whom the anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect -- the same ability as the filer of the SLAPP to challenge an adverse trial court decision. See Assembly Bill 1675 and Supporters of AB 1675.

2005 -- The statute was amended to overrule the decision by the California Supreme Court in Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, which held that the trial court's erroneous denial of an anti-SLAPP motion constitutes probable cause for filing and maintaining a SLAPP, as well as the decisions in Decker v. UD Registry (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, and Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, which held that the 30-day period in which to schedule a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion is jurisdictional. See Assembly Bill 1158.


Code of Civil Procedure sec. 425.17

This statute was enacted to correct abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). It prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to (1) public interest and class actions when certain conditions are met, and (2) actions against a business that arise from commercial statements or conduct of the business.

History of Statute -- SB 515 (Kuehl) signed into law Sept. 6, 2003 by the governor and effective Jan. 1, 2004. Previous version of the bill, SB 789 (Kuehl), was vetoed by the Governor in 2002.


Code of Civil Procedure sec. 425.18

This statute was enacted primarily to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed. It provides that the prevailing defendant attorney fee and immediate appeal provisions of the anti-SLAPP law do not apply to SLAPPbacks, and that an anti-SLAPP motion may not be filed against a SLAPPback by a party whose filing or maintenance of the prior cause of action from which the SLAPPback arises was illegal as a matter of law.

History of Statute –- AB 1158 (Lieber), signed into law Oct. 5, 2005 by the governor and effective immediately (as urgency legislation).


Civil Code sec. 47

Defines privileged publication or broadcast and immunizes participants in official proceedings or litigation against all tort actions except malicious prosecution. This statute figures prominently in several cases republished here in Other California Cases.


Return to Home Page