Anti-SLAPP protection

Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8136 through § 8138.

Law summary

Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute is among the most limited in scope, as it does not provide any protection for the media. The statute’s description of a SLAPP is confined to cases where the plaintiff is a “public applicant or permittee,” defined as someone seeking or holding a government permit, zoning change, lease, license, or similar entitlement, or someone closely connected to such a person. Additionally, the statute narrowly defines the type of action involving public petition and participation as those brought by a public applicant or permittee and “materially related to any efforts of the defendant to report on, rule on, challenge or oppose such application or permission.” Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute is intended to be applied narrowly, specifically to public petition and participation in land-use proceedings.

Legal actions

Delaware’s anti-SLAPP law includes several key features:

• Motion to dismiss: A defendant can file a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment if they can prove that the claim involves public petition and participation. The motion will be granted unless the plaintiff can show that their claim has a substantial legal basis.
• Attorney fees: Defendants can recover costs, attorney’s fees, and other damages if they prove that the action was brought without a substantial basis in fact and law and “was commenced or continued for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing, or otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition, or association rights.”

Helpful cases

The cases below reflect the limitations of Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is applied to land use-disputes but does not extend to media protection.

Agar v. Judy (2017)

Three former directors of Preferred Communications Systems, Inc. (PSCI) brought the defamation claim against members of the Preferred Investors Association who distributed a letter before PSCI’s annual stockholders meeting. The letter contained allegations that the directors had looted the company for personal gain, concealed their actions and failed to make necessary payments to investors. The court held that the former directors adequately pleaded a defamation claim. The defendants argued that the claim should be dismissed under Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute. However, the court determined that the statute was not applicable in this context because it was designed for land-use disputes and not general defamation claims.

Page v. Oath Inc. (2021)

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign advisor, Carter Page, sued Oath Inc.s online news organizations for defamation over 11 articles about him published in 2017 and 2018. The Superior Court granted Oath’s motion to dismiss, ruling that articles were “either true or substantially true,” but the case never references Delaware’s anti-SLAPP law. Ultimately, Page was defined as a limited purpose public figure and failed to prove actual malice by the journalists. Additionally, Oath was protected by the federal Communications Decency Act for the contributor articles. The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Courts judgments.

ShotSpotter Inc. v. VICE Media, LLC (2021)

In this case, ShotSpotter, Inc., a precision policing technology firm, sued VICE Media for defamation. ShotSpotter claimed VICE deliberately misrepresented court records and falsely accused the company of conspiring with police to fabricate evidence to frame Black men for crimes in a podcast, on social media and in an article. ShotSpotter argued VICE engaged in defamation by implication, where the defamatory meaning is not directly stated through explicit words but is instead implied by the context of the information published. The court ruled that ShotSpotter needed to not only prove the reporters’ knowledge of the falsity of the information but also establish the defendants’ intent to communicate the defamatory meaning. The court determined that the plaintiff could not satisfy the greater standard of intent to communicate defamatory meaning. The court granted VICE’s motion to dismiss, again doing so without mentioning the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

Legislative activity

Senate Bill 312 was introduced and assigned to the Judicial Committee in the Senate in May 2024. It passed out of the committee but didn’t go further. It was reintroduced as Senate Bill 80 in 2025. The bill proposed adopting the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act authored by the Uniform Law Commission. This Act protects the public’s right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment without facing abusive, expensive legal retaliation. The Act would expand the scope of the current Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Senate Bill 80 passed unanimously in the Senate on May 14, 2025 and was awaiting action by the House.

Of note

While Delaware has an anti-SLAPP law, it received a grade of “D-” from the Institute for Free Speech due to the limited protection.