Anti-SLAPP protection

General Statutes § 52-196a went into effect in 2018.

Law summary

Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law expedites the termination of lawsuits that aim to punish speech protected by the First Amendment or that are in connection with a matter of public concern. Matters of public concern include speech concerning 1) health or safety, 2) environmental, economic or community well-being, 3) the government, zoning and other regulatory matters, 4) a public official or public figure, or 5) an audiovisual work.

Legal actions

Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law includes a few features to protect publishers:

• Special motion to dismiss: A defendant can file a motion to throw out the lawsuit if it qualifies as a SLAPP. To expedite the dismissal of a frivolous lawsuit, defendants can file a special motion to dismiss within 30 days of filing that stays discovery, and that stay of discovery remains in effect throughout the challenge to the lawsuit.
• Expedited hearing: The court is required to consider a motion to dismiss within a short timeframe, no later than 60 days after the date of filing of the special motion.
• Attorney fees: If the court grants a special motion to dismiss, the law directs it to award costs and attorney’s fees to the party who filed the special motion to dismiss. Conversely, if the court finds the motion to dismiss unnecessary or causing delay, it will award attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Helpful cases

Although the statute’s language does not provide for a general right of interlocutory appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion, the judicial branch in the first case granted a defendant’s right to appeal in order to facilitate an expedited hearing. The other two cases both underscore General Statutes § 52-196a as a prompt remedy to frivolous lawsuits and demonstrate the statute’s broad scope of speech protections.

Pryor v. Brignole (2023)

An attorney sued former colleagues over anonymous letters he believed they distributed to news outlets, which questioned the plaintiff’s fitness to practice law. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss, denying they had written the letters. For that reason, a trial court denied the motion on the basis that the defendants had not engaged in any speech. Upon appealing to the Connecticut Supreme Court, justices ruled that the letters in question were separate from the issue of free speech protections and concluded the trial court’s denial was appealable. As a result, Connecticut’s Supreme Court decision cemented General Statutes § 52-196a as a prompt remedy to frivolous lawsuits by bolstering a defendant’s right to an interlocutory appeal.

Elder v. Kauffman (2021)

An attorney sued a reporter and publisher over two articles, alleging they were defamatory because they stated he had “impersonated” another attorney. After the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case, an appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision and likened the special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute to a motion for summary judgment (a judgment entered by a court without a full trial). For that reason, this case emphasizes the general statute’s § 52-196a objective, which is to prevent these disputes from turning into time-consuming, punishing, and costly trials.

Chapnick v. Dilauro (2019)

A Connecticut appeals court underscored general statute § 52-196a’s broad speech protections by clarifying any statement given to law enforcement or in cooperation with a prosecution is protected communication and a matter of public concern. In this case, a plaintiff couple claimed their neighbors inflicted emotional distress among several other claims following a dispute relating to where the defendants walked their dogs and allowed them to urinate and defecate along condominium units owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also alleged the defendants gave false or exaggerated claims to investigating law enforcement that surmounted to the plaintiff’s prior arrest. Since the speech in dispute was related to a police investigation, the court ruled the defendants’ communication was a matter of public concern and entitled to a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Legislative activity

Connecticut lawmakers have not considered revisions to the state’s anti-SLAPP law since 2018. However, in three separate rulings from 2023, the judicial branch held that speakers have the right to an interlocutory appeal when an anti-SLAPP motion is denied.

Of note

Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP protections received an A- rating from the Institute for Free Speech.