SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A SLAPP suit is not filed to win — it is filed to silence. The plaintiff’s goal is to impose litigation costs on a critic or citizen who has spoken out on a public issue, making the fight expensive enough that the target backs down regardless of the merits. Georgia’s response is O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1, which creates a special motion to strike that can end a SLAPP early, stay discovery in the meantime, and shift attorney’s fees to the plaintiff who brought it.
The Statute’s Purpose
Section 9-11-11.1(a) states the purpose plainly: to prevent citizens’ constitutional rights of speech and petition from being “chilled through abuse of the judicial process” and to encourage participation by citizens in matters of public significance. The statute protects acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech under the U.S. or Georgia constitutions in connection with an issue of public interest or concern. Uga
The protected categories under § 9-11-11.1(c) include: written or oral statements made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by such a body; statements made in a place open to the public or in a public forum; and statements made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public concern. That last category is the broadest and has generated the most litigation over its scope. RJI
The Special Motion to Strike
Under § 9-11-11.1(b)(1), a court must grant a defendant’s motion to strike claims that could reasonably be construed as arising from protected activity, unless the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the claim. The burden shifts to the plaintiff; the defendant need only show that the claim arises from protected conduct. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
In ruling on the motion, the court considers the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. This is more demanding for the plaintiff than a standard 12(b)(6) motion, which assumes all allegations are true. Appellate review is de novo, viewing the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, as confirmed in PNC Financial Services Group v. Gibson, 371 Ga. App. 660, 661 (901 S.E.2d 331) (2024). JustiaJustia
The Discovery Stay
Filing the motion to strike stays discovery and all pending hearings or motions until the court reaches a final decision. This is one of the statute’s most significant practical effects. A SLAPP plaintiff’s leverage often comes from the cost of discovery while the merits are unresolved. The stay cuts off that leverage immediately, placing the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate likelihood of success before further costs are incurred. Georgia State University Law School
The 30-Day Hearing Requirement
The court must hear the motion to strike within 30 days of service. If the docket requires additional time, the court must issue a written order explaining the delay. Georgia courts have not treated a delayed hearing as automatically invalidating the motion, but the mandate reflects the legislature’s intent that anti-SLAPP motions be resolved quickly. Georgia State University Law School
Attorney’s Fees
If the defendant succeeds on the motion to strike, the defendant is granted attorney’s fees and expenses. Fees and expenses must be requested by motion within 45 days of a final decision. The award is not discretionary — the statute mandates it. This fee-shifting is the statute’s primary deterrent: a plaintiff who brings a SLAPP and loses not only fails to silence the defendant but funds the defense. Georgia State University Law School
Conversely, if the motion to strike was frivolous or intended solely to delay, the court may award fees to the plaintiff. The statute is not a reflex delay tactic available to all defendants.
The Statute in Practice: Neff v. McGee
The leading Georgia decision is Neff v. McGee, 346 Ga. App. 522, 816 S.E.2d 486 (2018). Attorney Michael Neff published a blog post about the dangers of Snapchat’s speed filter after his client suffered brain damage in an accident. The other driver, Christal McGee, sued Neff for defamation. Neff moved to strike under § 9-11-11.1, arguing his statements were conditionally privileged under O.C.G.A. § 51-5-7(4) as statements made in good faith on a matter of public concern. The Court of Appeals applied the anti-SLAPP statute and found the statements conditionally privileged, reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion to strike. FindLaw
Practical Considerations
The anti-SLAPP motion is powerful but not universal. The claim must arise from conduct qualifying as protected speech or petition activity in connection with a public issue. Purely private disputes — a defamation claim between contractors over a private contract — may not meet the threshold, and a premature or frivolous motion may draw a fee award against the movant.
For defendants facing suits arising from public comment, regulatory complaints, or statements made in civic or judicial proceedings, evaluating the anti-SLAPP motion early is essential. The discovery stay — and the fee-shifting that follows a successful motion — make prompt action the right approach.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!