Michigan’s New Anti-SLAPP Law Provides New Protections Against Efforts To Stifle Speech Through Litigation

After many years as an outlier, Michigan has finally joined the majority of states by enacting comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation. The acronym “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” referring to lawsuits brought with the specific intent of silencing individuals or businesses that speak on matters of public concern. With the state’s adoption of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), effective March 24, 2026, those targeted by these actions now have significant legal tools to push back against efforts to use litigation to intimidate and suppress constitutionally protected expression.

The new law marks a substantial change in how Michigan courts address such cases and carries important implications for businesses, journalists, professionals, activists, public officials, and anyone who speaks publicly on issues of public interest.

Purpose and Scope of Michigan’s New Anti-SLAPP Law

As noted above, SLAPP lawsuits are generally filed not because the plaintiff expects to prevail on the merits or recover meaningful damages or other relief, but because the litigation itself—with its costs, disruptions, and potential reputational consequences—can achieve the objective of silencing the defendant.

Michigan’s UPEPA broadly applies to claims arising from an individual’s or business’s exercise of free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, petition, or association rights on matters of public concern. It also extends to communications made in connection with governmental proceedings and issues under consideration by governmental bodies.

The statute’s preamble expressly states that its purpose is to “promote the rights of citizens to vigorously participate in government” and to “protect citizens from the chilling effect of retributive and abusive strategic lawsuits against public participation…”

How the Law Helps Defendants Fight Back Against SLAPP Suits

UPEPA advances these objectives by providing defendants with a variety of procedural tools designed to combat SLAPP lawsuits and obtain the prompt resolution of claims that often lack merit.

When a lawsuit falls within the statute’s scope, a defendant may file a special motion seeking expedited relief, allowing the court to evaluate whether the plaintiff’s claims possess sufficient merit before the parties incur substantial litigation costs.

Several additional protections reinforce this process and place a significantly greater burden on the plaintiff. These include:

Stay of Discovery

Perhaps the statute’s most significant feature is its automatic stay of discovery, which is frequently the most expensive and time-consuming phase of litigation. Discovery can involve extensive document production, depositions, expert testimony, and electronic data collection. Under Michigan’s new anti-SLAPP law, discovery and the associated costs and disruptions are generally suspended while the court considers the special expedited motion.

Expedited Judicial Review

As discussed above, UPEPA is intended to facilitate an early determination of whether a lawsuit has sufficient legal and factual merit to proceed. Rather than requiring a defendant to endure years of litigation before obtaining dismissal, the court can address the issue at the outset of the case.

Burden-Shifting Framework

The statute shifts the focus to whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the claims have enough merit to survive the special motion process. This burden-shifting framework is a hallmark of modern anti-SLAPP legislation and is intended to eliminate meritless claims before significant litigation expenses accumulate.

Attorney Fees and Sanctions

Another important aspect of the law is the availability of attorney fees and sanctions in appropriate circumstances. These fee-shifting provisions create a meaningful deterrent against lawsuits filed primarily to suppress protected speech. Without them, even defendants who ultimately prevail may suffer substantial financial harm from defending baseless claims.

Implications for Michigan Businesses

For Michigan business owners, the new law presents both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, businesses may benefit from its protections when engaging in public advocacy, commenting on governmental actions, participating in trade associations, or speaking on matters of public concern. On the other hand, companies contemplating defamation, business disparagement, or similar claims—including those arising from negative online reviews—should carefully consider whether the action could trigger anti-SLAPP protections. Judges are now empowered at an early stage to dismiss poorly conceived lawsuits intended to silence criticism, expose the plaintiff to a substantial award of attorney fees and costs, and potentially impose sanctions.

Implications for Individuals

For individuals, the statute provides an important safeguard against being drawn into costly litigation simply for expressing opinions, participating in public discourse, or communicating with government officials.

At the same time, the law does not provide immunity for false statements, defamation, or other actionable misconduct. Legitimate claims may still proceed, but UPEPA equips courts with an effective mechanism to distinguish between meritorious lawsuits and those filed primarily to intimidate or silence defendants.

As Michigan courts begin interpreting the statute, businesses, professionals, media organizations, and individuals should expect an expanding body of case law that defines the scope of protected speech and clarifies the circumstances under which anti-SLAPP protections apply.

If you have questions or concerns about this evolving area of Michigan law, please contact Jordan Held at Kreis Enderle.