An Act Concerning Enhanced Protections Available Under The State's Anti-slapp Statute.
HB 7134 expands Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect people from lawsuits aimed at chilling speech, petitioning, or association on matters of public concern. The bill broadens and clarifies the definitions of protected activity, including speech in public forums, certain written communications about alleged crimes or discriminatory practices, and communications connected to government review or public participation. It also defines “matter of public concern” more explicitly to include health and safety, environmental, economic, community, zoning, governmental, and public-figure issues, as well as audiovisual works.
The bill creates a special motion to dismiss for claims based on protected activity and requires courts to pause discovery while that motion is pending, with limited discovery allowed for good cause. Courts must hold an expedited hearing and grant dismissal if the moving party shows the claim arises from protected activity, unless the plaintiff can show probable cause and plead the claim with particularity. If the motion succeeds, the prevailing party receives costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; if the motion is frivolous and intended to delay, fees may be awarded to the nonmoving party. The act applies to civil actions filed on or after October 1, 2025, and excludes certain claims, including most bodily injury and wrongful death actions, while preserving defamation claims and some emotional distress claims.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen procedural protections for defendants in speech-related lawsuits and to make it harder for plaintiffs to use litigation to suppress public participation or criticism. It amends state anti-SLAPP procedures in the General Statutes, affects civil practice in Superior Court, and creates a faster, more defendant-friendly dismissal mechanism for covered claims. It also preserves existing authority for sanctions and other remedies, and does not create a new private right of action.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee 35-6, the House 147-0, and the Senate 36-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. The unanimous floor votes suggest the measure was viewed as a technical but meaningful civil procedure reform rather than a controversial policy shift.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of the expanded protections and the risk that the special motion to dismiss could be used to dispose of legitimate claims too early. The bill addresses that concern by excluding bodily injury and wrongful death claims, limiting discovery stays, and allowing plaintiffs to proceed if they can plead with specificity and show probable cause. Another notable carveout is that the expedited hearing timeline is delayed when the speech-related communication is tied to a pending criminal proceeding or a discriminatory practice complaint, reflecting an effort to balance anti-retaliation protections with other active legal processes.
This act amends Connecticut General Statutes section 52-196a, effective October 1, 2025, and applies to civil actions filed on or after that date. It expands the state’s anti-SLAPP framework by broadening protected speech, petitioning, and association activity; creating a special motion to dismiss; imposing an automatic stay of discovery; authorizing expedited hearings; and providing fee-shifting for successful or frivolous motions. It also narrows and clarifies exclusions for bodily injury, wrongful death, defamation, libel, slander, and certain emotional distress claims, while preserving other defenses, immunities, sanctions, and the Attorney General’s enforcement authority.
The recorded legislative sentiment is overwhelmingly positive and bipartisan. The Judiciary Committee advanced the bill by a strong margin, and both chambers passed it unanimously or near-unanimously, suggesting broad agreement that Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP protections should be strengthened. The absence of recorded floor opposition in the final votes indicates little public legislative resistance to the measure as enacted.
The likely substantive tension is between protecting public participation and avoiding dismissal of meritorious claims. Critics of broader anti-SLAPP laws generally worry that defendants could use the procedure to delay or defeat legitimate lawsuits, especially in defamation or discrimination-related disputes, while supporters argue the law is needed to deter retaliatory litigation. The bill responds by requiring a showing of probable cause from the plaintiff, limiting discovery, excluding most bodily injury and wrongful death claims, and creating exceptions for pending criminal and discriminatory-practice proceedings, which suggests the legislature sought to balance speech protections with access to the courts.