What Michigan’s New Anti-SLAPP Law Means for Businesses and Individuals
After many years as an outlier, Michigan has finally joined the majority of states in enacting comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation. That acronym stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” a type of lawsuit filed with the specific intent to silence the speech of individuals and corporations on matters of public concern. With the state’s adoption of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), which became effective on March 24, 2026, those in the crosshairs of such litigation now have powerful tools to fight back against these attempts to use the legal system as a weapon of intimidation designed to suppress constitutionally protected expression.
The new law represents a major shift in Michigan litigation practice 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, SLAPP lawsuits are typically filed not because the plaintiff expects to prevail on the merits or recover actual damages or other relief, but because the litigation itself, with its expense, disruptions, and potential reputational harm, can accomplish their goal of silencing a 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 covers communications made in connection with governmental proceedings and issues under consideration by governmental bodies.
As expressly stated in the statute’s preamble, 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 seeks to accomplish those stated objectives by providing defendants with a range of procedural tools they can use to fight back and obtain a speedy resolution of these often-specious claims.
Specifically, when a lawsuit falls within the statute’s scope, the defendant may file a special motion seeking expedited relief. This allows the court to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims have sufficient merit before the parties incur substantial litigation expenses.
Several other important protections complement this procedure and place a much greater litigation burden on the plaintiff. These include:
Stay of Discovery
Perhaps the most powerful feature of the law is the automatic stay of discovery, which is often the most expensive and time-consuming phase of litigation. It can involve extensive document production, depositions, expert witnesses, and electronic data collection. Under Michigan’s new anti-SLAPP statute, discovery and its inherent costs and disruptions are generally suspended while the court evaluates the special expedited motion.
Expedited Judicial Review
As alluded to, UPEPA is designed to provide an early determination regarding whether the lawsuit has sufficient legal and factual merit to proceed. Rather than forcing 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 law shifts the focus to whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the claims possess sufficient merit to survive the special motion process. This burden-shifting mechanism is one of the hallmarks of modern anti-SLAPP legislation and is intended to weed out meritless claims before significant litigation costs accrue.
Attorney Fees and Sanctions
Another critical feature is the availability of attorney fees and sanctions in appropriate cases. Fee-shifting provisions create a powerful deterrent against filing lawsuits intended primarily to suppress protected speech. Without such provisions, even a successful defendant may suffer substantial financial harm from having to defend a meritless lawsuit.
Implications for Michigan Businesses
For Michigan business owners, the new law has both benefits and risks. On one hand, businesses may benefit from the statute when they engage in public advocacy, comment on governmental actions, participate in trade associations, or speak on matters of public concern. On the other hand, however, companies considering defamation, business disparagement, or similar claims (such as those based on negative online reviews) must carefully evaluate whether the lawsuit could trigger anti-SLAPP protections. A poorly conceived lawsuit aimed at silencing criticism may now face early dismissal, potentially expose the plaintiff to an award of substantial attorneys’ fees and costs, and risk the entry of sanctions by the court.
Implications for Individuals
For individuals, the new statute provides a meaningful safeguard against being dragged into expensive litigation merely for expressing opinions, participating in public debate, or communicating with government officials.
Importantly, the law does not create immunity for false statements, defamation, or otherwise actionable misconduct. Such legitimate claims can still proceed, but the UPEPA provides courts with an effective mechanism to distinguish between meritorious lawsuits and those filed primarily to intimidate or silence defendants.
As courts begin interpreting the new law, businesses, professionals, media organizations, and individuals should expect a growing body of case law defining the scope of protected speech and the circumstances under which anti-SLAPP protections apply. If you have questions or concerns about this new aspect of Michigan’s legal landscape, please contact Michael Hamblin at Maddin Hauser.