Here are some answers to some frequently asked questions. If you don’t see what you’re looking for, please reach out to us at slappback@nyu.org.
Why are you doing this?
Multiple outlets have reported on anecdotal evidence suggesting that strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, have become an increasingly common tool used by those seeking to silence their critics. But there is no reliable data on the scope of that problem in the United States. We hope to change that. Our ongoing data analysis will identify frequent offenders and common targets, bringing much-needed transparency and accountability to an issue that lacks both. And with legislation to strengthen anti-SLAPP protections under consideration at both the state and federal levels, the data could also inform policy solutions with lasting impacts.
Why should I care?
You might think that SLAPPs only affect major media organizations or outspoken political activists. That’s not the case. Anyone – from award-winning investigative journalists to unwitting Yelp reviewers – can face expensive litigation for engaging in protected public discourse. It’s a multi-million dollar problem that can bankrupt small businesses and divert valuable resources in taxpayer-funded court systems. So SLAPPs, whether you’re a target or not, can have a significant influence on your information environment, affecting what you see and hear and, perhaps most importantly, what you don’t.
What is the process for documenting and verifying cases in your database?
We outlined the steps for evaluating every case included in our database in our Methodology. Our reporters’ initial determinations were rigorously fact-checked by our research fellow and our legal advisors reviewed the most complex cases we encountered. Our methodology also outlines some caveats, including why some cases are missing and why we removed certain cases.
How comprehensive is the data?
After a thorough review of several options, we chose to purchase a subscription to Westlaw, a legal database owned by Thomson Reuters, to conduct our research. According to a company spokesperson, no legal research database can claim to include every relevant case ever filed and the availability of decisions can vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and “continues to evolve.”
The company uses a variety of methods to obtain filings across thousands of court systems nationwide, the spokesperson said, and targets acquisition of certain filings based on the following criteria: “Cases that are resolved after significant litigation, e.g., cases resolved by trial or summary judgment; cases receiving national press coverage; cases brought to our attention by judges, customers, or internal subject matter experts; cases in high-interest case types, such as professional malpractice, products liability, complex business litigation, etc.; cases that are appealed and of interest to our customers.”
An important reminder: This database includes cases that were decided in 2024. If it was decided before then, it’s not in the database. If it is ongoing, it’s not in the database. That includes some recent headline-making cases that experts have suggested might be SLAPPs, but we require a judge’s analysis before making any determinations. We’re watching these cases closely.
What’s next?
Our goal is to analyze cases back to 1994, when the first decision on an anti-SLAPP motion was recorded in Westlaw. We’re already analyzing data from 2023, and when the calendar year turns over, we’ll shift our view to 2025. Depending on the availability of additional funding, we’ll continue to work on clearing the backlog as we add future years of data to our analysis and launch a series of investigative reports in partnership with major media outlets. Ultimately we want to create a method of surveying for potential SLAPPs in states without anti-SLAPP statutes and a mechanism for reporting suspected SLAPPs for expert review as they emerge.
I think I’ve been SLAPP’d! What should I do?!? Can you help me?
We’re investigative reporters, so while we don’t provide legal advice or assistance, we do know a lot of organizations that do. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Lawyers for Reporters provide free legal resources and information to journalists, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have defended countless citizens targeted for protected expression. (Full disclosure: FIRE is one of several organizations that provided generous support for this project.)
Who funds this project? How can I support it?
The SLAPP Back Initiative is a project of First Amendment Watch, a nonprofit newsroom housed at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. We received seed funding from the Journalism Venture Capital Fund at NYU as well as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the Pulitzer Center and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri (RJI). They are all acknowledged on our Homepage. You can support our ongoing work via this donation link. Thank you for your consideration!