Anti-SLAPP protection

Ohio’s anti-SLAPP law is the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act from Chapter 2747 of Ohio’s Revised Code.

Law summary

The law applies to someone’s communications in government proceedings or as “the person’s exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution, on a matter of public concern.” (Sec. 2747.01. (A)) There are exceptions listed, such as for government officials in the conduct of their offices.

Legal actions

• Motion to dismiss: Defendants must file for a motion for expedited relief no later than 60 days after being served a lawsuit. The court can extend this deadline by another 60 days.
• Stay of discovery: The court “may allow limited discovery” to establish whether the defendant has met the standard for a SLAPP claim.
• Hearing: The court has 60 days to conduct a hearing and 60 days after that to give a ruling.
• Recovery of fees: The law allows for the payment of attorney fees, costs, and expenses of litigation incurred in defending against SLAPP suits. But if the SLAPP motion is denied, and the motion is determined to be frivolous, then the original plaintiffs can recover costs.

Helpful cases

Ohio’s anti-SLAPP law was passed in January 2025, so judges have yet to specifically address it. Despite this, SLAPP-related concerns appeared on multiple occasions even before the law was passed. The mentions are noteworthy.

Murray v. Chagrin Valley Publishing (2014)

Mining magnate Bob Murray sued the Chagrin Valley Times for defamation and false light invasion of privacy for its coverage of a protest that ensued after Murray fired 156 employees. The newspaper also published an editorial and cartoon that were critical of Murray’s actions. The case was thrown out. Murray appealed the lower court’s decision, but the appeals court upheld the initial outcome. In its conclusion, the appeals court reasoned, “This case illustrates the need for Ohio to join the majority of states in this country that have enacted statutes that provide for quick relief from suits aimed at chilling protected speech.” The court continued, “These suits, referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPP”), can be devastating to individual defendants or small news organizations and act to chill criticism and debate.”

Tri-County Concrete Co. v. Uffman-Kirsch (2000)

A non-profit citizens’ group was sued for defamation after it protested a concrete company’s expansion into their area. The citizens’ group argued the defamation lawsuit was a SLAPP. The court explored the group’s contention, explaining, “The Ohio General Assembly has not yet chosen to enact anti-SLAPP legislation, and this court is constrained from recognizing such an action at this time.” The court concluded by noting an anti-SLAPP law is not needed because the group could use the state’s frivolous lawsuit statute which “affords to the grievant ample relief including attorney fees.”

AVB Properties v. Chesler (2006)

In a 2006 case between a tenant and a property owner, the tenant argued in his appeal that the lower court incorrectly used SLAPP reasoning, which “as a matter of law the state of Ohio does not recognize.” The appeals court agreed that Ohioans do not have protections from an anti-SLAPP law but reasoned the presence or absence of an anti-SLAPP law was not a factor in the lower court’s decision.

Legislative activity

There have been no changes to the state’s anti-SLAPP law since it was passed in 2025.

Of note

John Oliver, who also faced a SLAPP lawsuit from Bob Murray, highlighted Murray’s lawsuit against Chagrin Valley Publishing in a 2019 episode of his show “Last Week Tonight.”