Washington's anti-SLAPP statute, enacted in 1989, was the first modern anti-SLAPP law in the U.S. It passed unanimously in reaction to the plight of a young woman who was sued for defamation by a real estate company after she helped the state collect back taxes owed by the company (Robert John Real Estate Co. v. Hill, No. 872016983, Superior Court, Clark County, Washington, filed July 14, 1987).
The statute was amended in March 2002, with the following explanation (House Bill 2699, Sec. 1): "Although Washington State adopted the first modern anti-SLAPP law in 1989, that law has, in practice, failed to set forth clear rules for early dismissal review. Since that time, the United States supreme court has made it clear that, as long as the petitioning is aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, product, or outcome, it is protected and the case should be dismissed. This bill amends Washington law to bring it in line with these court decisions...."
A developer sued a homeowner for defamation based on the homeowner's report to public officials that the developer had illegally cleared land within the development. Held: plaintiff in an action for defamation arising from a communication to a public officer must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew of the falsity of the communications or acted with reckless disregard as to their falsity."
Loeffelholz v. C.L.E.A.N.
Superior Court, Thurston County, October 1, 1999
Defendant's brief in support of special motion to dismiss under RCW 4.24.500 et seq.
Right-Price Recreation v. Prairie Community Council et al.
Supreme Court, May 16, 2002
The court decided, inter alia, that the "good faith" requirement of the state's anti-SLAPP statute does not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by acting as a prior restraint of speech. The court expressly approved the test adopted by the Gilman court: "[W]here a defendant in a defamation action claims immunity under RCW 4.24.510 on the ground his or her communications to a public officer were made in good faith, the burden is on the defamed party to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act in good faith. That is, the defamed party must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant knew of the falsity of the communications or acted with reckless disregard as to their falsity."