Anti-SLAPP protection

New Hampshire does not have an anti-SLAPP law.

Helpful cases

While New Hampshire does not have an anti-SLAPP statute, state court decisions have provided insights regarding avoiding discovery, protecting anonymous sources, and quashing frivolous lawsuits.

Spofford v. New Hampshire Public Radio (2023)

Eric Spofford sued NHPR for defamation after it published accusations of sexual misconduct against him. NHPR’s motion to dismiss was granted because Spofford failed to allege that NHPR journalists had acted with actual malice. Spofford argued he needed to review materials to allege actual malice in an amended complaint and made a motion for limited discovery. The court granted his motion in part; the judge agreed to an in camera review with identifying information redacted. Among the materials NHPR defendants were required to provide were notes and transcribed interviews from sources and internal communications regarding source credibility. The provided materials took up nearly 3,000 pages. After reviewing the information, the court found no evidence to suggest actual malice and declined to provide the materials to Spofford.

The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries (2010)

Implode published an article on its website that “detailed administrative actions taken by the New Hampshire Banking Department against Mortgage Specialists.” The article included a link to a document detailing Mortgage Specialists’ 2007 loan figures. Additionally, a comment by the anonymous “Brianbattersby” was left on the article. As part of a lawsuit brought forward regarding the article, Mortgage Specialists sued Brianbattersby for posting false and defamatory statements, requesting Implode disclose the anonymous posters’ identity. The trial court granted Mortgage Specialists’ request for the source disclosures. The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the decision, however, and remanded the case. In its decision, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard for cases seeking to unmask an anonymous online defendant in a defamation case. It concluded, “Posters have a First Amendment right to retain their anonymity and not to be subject to frivolous suits for defamation brought solely to unmask their identity.” The Supreme Court also reversed a trial court’s order that prohibited the republication of Brianbattersby postings, concluding that “Mortgage Specialists’ interests in protecting its privacy and reputation do not justify the extraordinary remedy of prior restraint.”

Automated Transactions LLC v. American Bankers Association (2016)

ATL sued 13 defendants for engaging in a “defamatory smear campaign” that criticized ATL’s actions as a limited liability company, including references to ATL as a “patent troll” and characterizations of its business practices as a “shakedown,” “extortion,” or “blackmail.” The suits included many forms of speech, including testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and news articles depicting ATL as a ‘patent troll.’ Some of the defendants sought to dismiss the complaint. The court accepted their motion, writing that the statement was protected opinion and the complaint was not actionable. The state Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2019.

Legislative activity

An anti-SLAPP bill (HB1475) was unsuccessful in New Hampshire in 2024. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee but never received a vote.

There have been other past attempts to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in the state. In 1994, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire published an opinion of the justices assessing proposed anti-SLAPP legislation. The opinion was requested by the state Senate as it considered SB 661, a bill that would create a special motion to strike for SLAPP suits. In its opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the special motion to strike procedure violated the New Hampshire Constitution by affecting cases where there is a right to a jury.

Of note

Under N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:15, if the court considers any action or defense to be frivolous or “intended to harass or intimidate the prevailing party,” the court or the prevailing party can make a motion for summary judgment. Under the section, the prevailing party can also be awarded with “the amount of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party plus $1,000.”