Zana Tomich
Dalton & Tomich
Dalton & Tomich
Consider a scenario: a Michigan business owner testifies at a township planning meeting against a proposed development. Weeks later, the developer files a defamation suit. The suit is filed not to win, but to bury the business owner in legal fees and send a message to anyone else thinking about speaking up. Before December 2025, that business owner had no expedited way out. Now they do.
On December 23, 2025, Michigan enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, MCL 691.1851 et. seq., making it the 39th state with anti-SLAPP protections. The law takes effect on March 24, 2026. For practitioners advising business clients, this statute reshapes the litigation landscape around public speech; understanding its mechanics, its limits, and its strategic implications is now essential.
—————
What changed and why it matters
SLAPP suits, acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are civil actions filed not to prevail on the merits but to impose the cost and stress of litigation on someone who spoke publicly. They typically target individuals with fewer resources than the plaintiff: residents who testify at government meetings, journalists covering local business practices, employees who blow the whistle, or consumers who post critical reviews.
While the state’s existing frivolous-lawsuit provision under MCL 600.2591 allowed courts to award costs against parties who brought groundless claims, it lacked the early-stage procedural mechanism that makes anti-SLAPP laws effective. The new law fills that gap with a framework modeled on the Uniform Law Commission’s Public Expression Protection Act.
—————
How the mechanism works
The statute creates a special motion for expedited relief. Within 60 days of being served, a defendant may file the motion asserting that the claims against them arise from protected expression or petitioning activity on a matter of public concern. Upon filing, all discovery and other proceedings between the parties are automatically stayed, removing the plaintiff’s primary leverage tool.
The court must hold a hearing within 60 days and rule within 60 days after that. The burden-shifting framework is straightforward: the moving party must first establish that the cause of action qualifies as an “eligible cause of action” targeting protected speech. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that their claim has a prima facie basis and that it is grounded in law and supported by evidence, not merely filed to harass. If the plaintiff cannot meet this threshold, the court dismisses the action with prejudice.
Critically, the statute mandates fee-shifting: a prevailing movant is awarded court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and litigation expenses. And if the trial court denies the motion, the defendant has a right to an immediate interlocutory appeal within 21 days, with all proceedings stayed pending the outcome.
—————
Know the boundaries: Where the law does not apply
Equally important is what the law excludes. Section 2(2) carves out two categories of claims that cannot be dismissed through the anti-SLAPP process, even if they involve speech.
First, commercial speech by sellers and lessors. If the defendant is primarily in the business of selling or leasing goods or services and the claim arises from communications related to that commercial activity, the anti-SLAPP motion is unavailable. This means standard commercial disputes, false advertising claims, and deceptive trade practice cases remain unaffected by the new law.
Second, claims brought under a specific list of civil rights, employment, and labor statutes. The exclusions include Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, FOIA, federal Title VII, Title IX, the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, and the FLSA. Employers cannot use an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a discrimination, retaliation, or wage claim, even if the underlying facts involve public speech or petitioning. Employment counsel on both sides should take careful note.
—————
Practical implications: Two sides of the coin
For defense counsel, the anti-SLAPP motion is now the first tool to reach for when a client faces a lawsuit that appears to target public expression or civic participation. The automatic discovery stay, expedited timeline, and fee-shifting provision fundamentally change the economics of these cases.
For plaintiff-side counsel, the calculus has shifted as well. Any claim touching public expression must be carefully vetted before filing. If a court determines the action targets protected speech and the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, the result is dismissal with prejudice plus mandatory fee-shifting. Pre-suit due diligence is no longer optional—it is a risk management imperative.
—————
Action items for practitioners
Review any pending litigation that may involve claims arising from public speech or petitioning activity. Update client intake procedures to flag potential anti-SLAPP exposure on both the plaintiff and defense side. Counsel business clients that filing suit against public critics now carries heightened procedural and financial risk.
The business owner from our opening scenario now has a path that didn’t exist six months ago: file the special motion, stay discovery, force the developer to prove their case has merit or face dismissal and a fee award. For Michigan’s legal community, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act is a practical shift in how litigation involving public discourse will be fought.
On December 23, 2025, Michigan enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, MCL 691.1851 et. seq., making it the 39th state with anti-SLAPP protections. The law takes effect on March 24, 2026. For practitioners advising business clients, this statute reshapes the litigation landscape around public speech; understanding its mechanics, its limits, and its strategic implications is now essential.
—————
What changed and why it matters
SLAPP suits, acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are civil actions filed not to prevail on the merits but to impose the cost and stress of litigation on someone who spoke publicly. They typically target individuals with fewer resources than the plaintiff: residents who testify at government meetings, journalists covering local business practices, employees who blow the whistle, or consumers who post critical reviews.
While the state’s existing frivolous-lawsuit provision under MCL 600.2591 allowed courts to award costs against parties who brought groundless claims, it lacked the early-stage procedural mechanism that makes anti-SLAPP laws effective. The new law fills that gap with a framework modeled on the Uniform Law Commission’s Public Expression Protection Act.
—————
How the mechanism works
The statute creates a special motion for expedited relief. Within 60 days of being served, a defendant may file the motion asserting that the claims against them arise from protected expression or petitioning activity on a matter of public concern. Upon filing, all discovery and other proceedings between the parties are automatically stayed, removing the plaintiff’s primary leverage tool.
The court must hold a hearing within 60 days and rule within 60 days after that. The burden-shifting framework is straightforward: the moving party must first establish that the cause of action qualifies as an “eligible cause of action” targeting protected speech. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that their claim has a prima facie basis and that it is grounded in law and supported by evidence, not merely filed to harass. If the plaintiff cannot meet this threshold, the court dismisses the action with prejudice.
Critically, the statute mandates fee-shifting: a prevailing movant is awarded court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and litigation expenses. And if the trial court denies the motion, the defendant has a right to an immediate interlocutory appeal within 21 days, with all proceedings stayed pending the outcome.
—————
Know the boundaries: Where the law does not apply
Equally important is what the law excludes. Section 2(2) carves out two categories of claims that cannot be dismissed through the anti-SLAPP process, even if they involve speech.
First, commercial speech by sellers and lessors. If the defendant is primarily in the business of selling or leasing goods or services and the claim arises from communications related to that commercial activity, the anti-SLAPP motion is unavailable. This means standard commercial disputes, false advertising claims, and deceptive trade practice cases remain unaffected by the new law.
Second, claims brought under a specific list of civil rights, employment, and labor statutes. The exclusions include Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, FOIA, federal Title VII, Title IX, the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, and the FLSA. Employers cannot use an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a discrimination, retaliation, or wage claim, even if the underlying facts involve public speech or petitioning. Employment counsel on both sides should take careful note.
—————
Practical implications: Two sides of the coin
For defense counsel, the anti-SLAPP motion is now the first tool to reach for when a client faces a lawsuit that appears to target public expression or civic participation. The automatic discovery stay, expedited timeline, and fee-shifting provision fundamentally change the economics of these cases.
For plaintiff-side counsel, the calculus has shifted as well. Any claim touching public expression must be carefully vetted before filing. If a court determines the action targets protected speech and the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, the result is dismissal with prejudice plus mandatory fee-shifting. Pre-suit due diligence is no longer optional—it is a risk management imperative.
—————
Action items for practitioners
Review any pending litigation that may involve claims arising from public speech or petitioning activity. Update client intake procedures to flag potential anti-SLAPP exposure on both the plaintiff and defense side. Counsel business clients that filing suit against public critics now carries heightened procedural and financial risk.
The business owner from our opening scenario now has a path that didn’t exist six months ago: file the special motion, stay discovery, force the developer to prove their case has merit or face dismissal and a fee award. For Michigan’s legal community, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act is a practical shift in how litigation involving public discourse will be fought.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
