Anti-SLAPP protection

Maine’s first anti-SLAPP statute was introduced in 1995   14 M.R.S.A. § 556. The narrow law was revised in 2024 and the new, broader law, 14 M.R.S. §§ 731-742 went into effect on January 1, 2025.

Law summary

Maine’s anti-SLAPP law, which is based on Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) wording, expands Maine’s protections against SLAPPs to include protection for any statement in connection with an issue of public interest made in a public forum or other place open to the public and any statement made in a media publication. The act also specifies three types of communication that do not apply, such as communication related to a sale or lease of goods or services.

Prior to the enactment of this new law, Maine’s anti-SLAPP law only applied to the right of petition in five categories, such as statements made before a legislative proceeding.

Legal actions

Maine’s anti-SLAPP law includes several key features to protect publishers:

• Special motion to dismiss: Defendants may file for a special motion to have the case dismissed no later than 60 days after being served a lawsuit.
• Stay of discovery: If the motion to dismiss is made, discovery is stayed until the ruling on the motion is finalized. Likewise, if a party appeals a dismissal decision, the stay remains in effect until the conclusion of the appeal. A court, however, may allow limited discovery if a party shows it necessary to help satisfy a burden.
• Interlocutory appeal: A party may appeal if their motion or order is denied.
• Accelerated hearing: The statute compels courts to hear oral arguments on the motion within 60 days after the motion is filed.
• Attorney fees: The court shall award court costs, attorney’s fees and reasonable litigation expenses to the moving if the moving party prevails, or responding party is the court determines the motion was frivolous.

Helpful cases

While no new cases are available regarding Maine’s new anti-SLAPP law, the following cases may offer guidance from old cases as to how courts have evaluated SLAPP lawsuits in the past.

Gaudette v. Mainely Media, LLC (2017)

The Gaudettes filed for defamation, false light, and loss of consortium against Mainely Media for publishing incorrect information indicating that Norman Gaudette had sexually abused children years earlier while he was a police officer. A trial court denied Mainely Media’s special motion to dismiss, citing the law was unsettled as to whether the article constituted “petitioning activity.” Mainely Media appealed and the Maine Supreme Court ruled Maine’s anti–SLAPP statute is not applicable to newspaper articles unless those articles constitute the newspaper petitioning on its own behalf or the party used the newspaper to broadcast the party’s own petitioning activities.

Susan Hamilton v. Drummond Woodsum (2020)

An investigation conducted by the law firm and consultancy Drummond Woodsum for the University of Southern Maine (USM) concluded Susan Hamilton engaged in both discriminatory and non-discriminatory harassment while serving as USM’s Multicultural Student Affairs director. Soon after, USM terminated Hamilton’s employment and Hamilton filed a lawsuit against the consultancy for defamation. The consultancy filed a special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law, but a trial court determined that the investigator was not exercising their right to petition, but was instead submitting a report for an internal investigation commissioned by USM. The consultancy appealed and the Maine Supreme court upheld that the trial court accurately determined the investigative report did not constitute petitioning activity within the anti-SLAPP law’s scope.

John Thurlow v. Zakia Nelson et. al (2021)

Zakia and Ross Nelson wrote to their school administrators after they felt the former principal at their son’s school, John Thurlow, didn’t do enough to protect him from bullying. The former principal sued the Nelsons, and the Nelsons filed a special motion to dismiss. Thurlow presented prima facie evidence that he suffered an actual injury and had to seek psychiatric treatment. He also presented affidavits that countered the Nelsons’ allegations of wrongdoing. A trial court dismissed Thurlow’s complaint and denied Thurlow’s request for a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Thurlow appealed, and the Maine Supreme Court ruled that if the opposing party presents prima facie evidence against the disputed statement then that is proof the disputed statement is devoid of any reasonable factual support. Since Thurlow met his burden by presenting prima facie evidence, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to deny the Nelsons’ special motion to dismiss. One judge dissented and argued prima facie proof is a low standard and must be paired with an evidentiary hearing to ensure the reliability or credibility of the evidence. By doing away with an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court mistakenly eliminated a trial court’s duty to compare the facts as presented by each side, ultimately diluting the statute’s protections.

Legislative activity

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, LD 870, was passed on April 13, 2024 after being introduced by Sen. Mike Tipping, D-Orono.

Of note

Maine’s prior anti-SLAPP law earned a C- in the Institute for Free Speech’s 2023 anti-SLAPP report card due to several flaws in the original 1995 statute.