Anti-SLAPP protection

Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, ORS § 31.150 through § 31.155, was passed in 2001 and revised in 2023.

Law summary

Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to file special motion to strike claims in civil actions when those claims arise from protected activities, such as statements made during legislative, executive, or judicial proceedings, or any conduct related to the exercise of constitutional rights like free speech or the right to petition in connection with a public issue (ORS 31.150).

Legal actions

• The burden of proof: The defendant must demonstrate that the claim involves protected speech or conduct. Then the plaintiff must prove there is a strong chance of winning by providing substantial evidence. If the plaintiff meets this standard, the motion to strike will be overruled. (ORS 31.150(3))
• Timeline: A special motion to strike must be filed within 60 days after the complaint is served. A hearing on the motion must be held within 30 days. Some exceptions exist.
• Attorney fees: If the court grants the special motion to strike, the moving party should be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees. If the motion is denied, no fees are awarded unless the motion is deemed frivolous.
• Exemptions: The anti-SLAPP provisions do not apply to actions brought by government attorneys (e.g., Attorney General) acting in their official capacity (ORS 31.155).

Helpful cases

In the cases below, courts evaluated the applicability of the Oregon’s anti-SLAPP laws in protecting media outlets and activists from meritless claims.

Cider Riot, L.L.C. v. Patriot Prayer USA, L.L.C.  (2024)

A Portland brewery and its owner sued the right-wing activist group Patriot Prayer, its owner Joseph Gibson, and several other associated individuals for various torts, including negligence, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with economic relations. The claims stemmed from a 2019 protest outside the brewery, where Patriot Prayer members and associated individuals allegedly confronted patrons linked to Antifa, engaged in a street fight, and encouraged others to report the brewery to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. The defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing their actions were protected by the First Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to strike, but the appellate court later dismissed some of the claims under the motion to strike while allowing others to continue.

C.I.C.S. Employment Services, Inc. v. Newport Newspapers, Inc. (2018)

C.I.C.S., an agency providing pre-employment background screening services, sued Newport Newspapers for defamation. C.I.C.S. claimed that the newspaper published an article implying the company was connected to a data breach and IRS fraud. The case was transferred to Lincoln County, where the defendants filed their anti-SLAPP motion over 60 days after being served with the complaint, missing the statutory deadline. The trial court ruled the motion was untimely and declined to exercise discretion to consider it, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The appellate court affirmed that the 60-day deadline was not impacted by the venue change, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Mullen v. Meredith Corp. (2015)

The Mullens sued Meredith Corporation, which owns Portland Fox affiliate KPTV, and a reporter after footage of their home and one of the plaintiffs, a corrections officer, was aired on a news broadcast. The plaintiff had specifically requested not to be shown on television due to safety concerns, and the reporter had agreed. However, the footage was aired in a broadcast, leading the plaintiffs to file claims for breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed a special motion to strike claims under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their conduct was protected by the right to free speech on a public issue. The trial court denied the motion. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the defendants’ actions were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court also determined that the plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing on their tort claims.

Legislative activity

In 2023, SB 305 modified Oregon’s Anti-SLAPP statute and modeled the new provisions after the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. SB 305 went into effect on January 1, 2024.

Of note

Oregon has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country.