Kentucky
RJI logo mark

Kentucky

Anti-SLAPP protection

Kentucky Revised Statutes 454.460 to 454.478 were enacted in 2022.

Law summary

Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP law applies to lawsuits against people for their communication in governmental proceedings or on issues under review by governmental bodies, as well as the exercise of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on matters of public concern, as protected by the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions (KRS 454.462(1)(a)(b)(c)).

Legal actions

Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP law includes three key features:

  • Motion hearing timeline: The special motion for expedited relief must be filed within 60 days of receiving the complaint and the court must hear it within 60 days of filing. This timeline can be extended for good cause or to allow limited discovery (KRS 454.464, 454.468).
  • Two-step analysis: The court first determines if the anti-SLAPP statute applies. If it does, the court checks if the responding party has established a prima facie case or if the moving party shows the claim fails legally or factually (KRS 454.472).
  • Attorney fees: The winning party on a special motion for expedited relief recovers court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable litigation expenses. If the motion was brought without good cause, the responding party can recover fees (KRS 454.478).

Helpful cases

Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP law is relatively new, however, there are a few significant cases concerning the limits of the new anti-SLAPP law and the protection of freedom of speech.

Davenport Extreme Pools and Spas, Inc. v. Mulflur (2024)

The case involves Davenport Extreme Pools and Spas suing the Mulflur and Judd families for allegedly conspiring to harm the business through negative communications and influencing customers to cancel contracts after failed pool construction agreements. The Kentucky anti-SLAPP law went into effect after Davenport filed the complaint; however, the Mulflurs moved to dismiss all claims under the new law. The court upheld the dismissal of the claims and awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants, applying Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP law retroactively. This case does not include news organizations, but it is significant because the court examined whether Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP law could be applied retroactively without violating the jural rights doctrine. The court determined Kentucky’s enacted Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) (anti-SLAPP law) is a procedural change that does not affect common-law recovery rights, thereby applying retroactively and not infringing on jural rights.

Ramler v. Birkenhauer (2024)

William Birkenhauer and Steven Franzen filed a defamation and false light lawsuit against former city council member David Ramler over pamphlets distributed during Ramler’s mayoral campaign, which accused Birkenhauer and Franzen of being racist and sexist. The trial court dismissed Ramler’s counterclaim for abuse of process and denied his motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The jury awarded significant damages to Birkenhauer and Franzen. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, determining that Ramler’s statements were non-actionable opinions and directed dismissal of the complaint, while affirming the dismissal of Ramler’s abuse of process counterclaim. In this case anti-SLAPP laws were not mentioned, however the case illustrates how courts can safeguard free speech against defamation claims, a core objective of anti-SLAPP legislation.

Estepp v. Johnson County Newspapers, Inc. (2019)

David A. Estepp sued The Paintsville Herald for defamation and outrageous conduct after it published articles stating he was “removed from” and “relieved of” his position as president/general manager of Big Sandy electric co-op. The articles reported on Estepp’s decision to take a petition that was circulating about him from a local grocery store. The Johnson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, dismissing the case on the grounds that the statements were substantially true, not defamatory and did not constitute outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the newspaper’s reporting did not defame Estepp or engage in outrageous conduct.

Legislative activity

No current legislative activity as of July 2024.

Of note

In 2022, Kentucky enacted its version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model law drafted by the Uniform Law Commission to prevent SLAPPs, and now is one of the leading states for anti-SLAPP protections.