Anti-SLAPP protection

South Dakota does not have anti-SLAPP law.

Helpful cases

South Dakota has never had an anti-SLAPP law, nor has any court in the state explicitly cited SLAPP-related concerns in a decision. These cases, however, indicate how state courts have handled lawsuits against news organizations:

Beef Products, Inc. et al. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al. (2017)

Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), a meat processing company, sued ABC News for a series of stories that referred to its product, lean finely textured beef (LFTB), as “pink slime.” BPI argued that the term “pink slime” was misleading and defamatory, causing harm to its business, including plant closures and layoffs. The case was filed in 2012 in South Dakota, and BPI sought $1.9 billion in damages, which could have been tripled under South Dakota’s Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act. ABC News defended its reporting, claiming it was protected by the First Amendment. In 2017, the parties reached a settlement before the trial concluded. It was reported that Disney, ABC’s parent company, paid $177 million to settle the “pink slime” defamation case.

Hopewell v. Midcontinent Broadcasting Corp. (1995)

Richard Hopewell, a candidate for Second Circuit judge in Sioux Falls, sued KELO-TV for defamation after it aired a news story about his past, mentioning his arrest for attempted rape and a mental health commitment. The Supreme Court of South Dakota analyzed whether the trial court should have compelled KELO’s journalists to reveal their confidential sources, given the absence of an absolute shield law in the state. The court ruled that Hopewell had not exhausted alternative means of obtaining the information and had not shown that the statements were false. It also emphasized the public interest in the election, favoring source confidentiality. The court upheld the summary judgment for KELO, finding that Hopewell was given due process but failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual malice necessary for a defamation claim.

Sparagon v. Native American Publishers, Inc. (1996)

Dr. Judd A. Sparagon sued Native American Publishers (NAP) for defamation after the Lakota Times published an article claiming the physician removed a diabetic patient’s toenails, leading to the amputation of the patient’s leg. The trial court granted summary judgment for NAP, citing a qualified privilege (a legal protection that allows certain statements to be made without the risk of defamation liability) under South Dakota law due to the public interest in podiatric care on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and ruling that Sparagon was not a public figure, which would have required a higher standard of proof. However, the South Dakota Supreme Court found that the qualified privilege did not apply to communications about a physician’s professional conduct, overturned the judgment on malice, and remanded the case. The Supreme Court dissent argued that the public interest justified the privilege and that the issue of malice should be decided by a jury.

Legislative activity

South Dakota lawmakers considered an anti-SLAPP bill in 2007. The bill was never voted out of a House committee.