Anti-SLAPP protection

Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP law is the Citizen Participation in Government Act from  A.C.A. § 16-63-501 through 16-63-508.

Law summary

Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP statute is generally broad, protecting free speech in connection with an issue of public interest or concern. Per Arkansas’s protocol, this includes but is not limited to expressions of opinion or criticisms related to legislative or municipal government proceedings.

Legal actions

Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP law provides several tools for those who face frivolous or malicious lawsuits. The law is unique in that it does not provide a system to appeal anti-SLAPP-law-based motion-to-appeal decisions. It also does not specify how long defendants may take to file a motion to dismiss.

• Motion to dismiss: Defendants may file for a motion to dismiss.
• Verification requirement: In return, a plaintiff and their attorney must submit a claim that certifies the lawsuit is legitimate within 10 days of a defendant’s motion to dismiss. The verification requires “the claim is not asserted for any improper purpose such as to suppress the right to free speech.” The certification includes committing that the lawsuit is not meant to harass, delay, or needlessly increase costs of litigation.
• Accelerated hearing: A hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss must be held no later than 30 days after the filing.
• Stay of discovery: Once a defendant files a motion to dismiss, all discovery must be stayed. However, the court may permit specified discovery if a good cause is shown.
• Attorney fees (optional): If the court determines the plaintiff’s lawsuit is in violation of § 16-63-505, the court must impose an “appropriate sanction.” This may include, but does not guarantee, dismissal of the claim or attorney’s fees.

Helpful cases

Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP statute has found little recourse in the courts. From the following cases, the law is at times missing from the discourse when it could be used as a remedy.

Shane Perry v. Walmart Stores, Inc (2023)

Former Walmart in-house attorney Shane Perry claimed he was terminated by Walmart for his refusal to change an ethics report and falsify evidence to lessen Walmart’s liability amid a federal government investigation, and subsequently, he sued the chain for wrongful termination, negligence, and outrage in 2021. Walmart filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to plead facts and a trial court dismissed all claims but one. Walmart once again moved to dismiss Perry’s complaint, arguing he had failed to appropriately meet the verification requirement in his complaint in compliance with Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP statute. Subsequently a trial court dismissed the claim, however, Perry requested an immediate appeal and the court followed Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and permitted his request. An appellate court then determined Perry’s allegations were a mere assertion and lacked sufficient facts that proved Walmart violated a state statute and dismissed the case. Despite there being no interlocutory appeal mechanism in the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff in this case still managed to make such an appeal.

Daniel Greenberg v. Horizon Arkansas Publications, INC. (2017)

While Daniel Greenberg ran in the Republican primary for the Arkansas State Senate, the Benton Courier published a series of editorials regarding his campaign. One column written by journalist Kristal Kuykendall alleged Greenberg’s campaign appeared to be in violation of Arkansas’s campaign ethics. Later in 2013, Greenberg sued the publication for defamation, and a circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the publisher. However, to do this, discovery followed, and Greenberg later incorporated findings from Kuykendall’s emails into his appeal. An appellate court ruled that because Kuykendall used the words “appears to be” in the column, the disputed statements were not an assertion of fact, and as a result dismissed the case. The case doesn’t mention Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP law.

Terry Hobbs v. Natalie Pasdar (2009)

In 2008 Terry Hobbs sued Natalie Maines Pasdar from the country band The Chicks for defamation after the singer posted a letter on the band’s website titled, “Free the West Memphis Three,” which described a DNA test revealing hair belonging to Hobbs was found on a murdered boy’s body. Maines moved for summary judgment and a court granted her motion, dismissing Hobbs’ complaint. The case doesn’t mention Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP law.

Legislative activity

Arkansas’s Citizen Participation in Government Act was signed into law in 2005. There has been no effort to update or propose new anti-SLAPP legislation since.

Of note

Arkansas received a C from the Institute for Free Speech.