An Act To Amend Title 10 Of The Delaware Code Relating To The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.
SB80 updates Delaware’s civil procedure and defamation-related protections by adopting the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (often described as an anti-SLAPP law). The bill creates a special expedited motion procedure for defendants sued over communications made in government proceedings, statements on issues under governmental review, or the exercise of speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on matters of public concern. If the motion applies, the court must quickly hear the case, may stay discovery and other proceedings, and must dismiss covered claims if the responding party cannot show the claim has a sufficient factual and legal basis.
The bill also provides for fee-shifting and, in some cases, punitive damages when a lawsuit is found to have been brought to harass or suppress protected expression. It includes rules on appeal, limited discovery, construction, and transitional provisions, and it expressly applies only to actions filed on or after the effective date. In addition, SB80 repeals and replaces Delaware’s existing public petition and participation provisions in Title 10, Sections 8136 through 8138, while preserving those older provisions for causes of action filed before the new law takes effect.
SB80 materially changes Delaware law by replacing the state’s existing public petition and participation statutes with a broader, more detailed anti-SLAPP framework in new Chapter 60 of Title 10. It expands procedural protections for defendants in civil actions involving speech and petitioning activity, imposes expedited deadlines, authorizes stays of litigation, and shifts costs and attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in covered motions. It also preserves pre-effective-date claims under the prior sections 8136-8138, limiting retroactive effect.
The voting history shows strong, bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the Senate passed the bill 19-0, the House passed it 38-0, and the Senate again passed it 20-0 after House amendment. That unanimous or near-unanimous support suggests the bill was viewed favorably across both chambers as a procedural protection for speech and participation rights. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate indicating organized opposition.
No major contention is reflected in the available record, likely because the bill passed unanimously. The main policy issue inherent in the text is the balance between protecting free expression and preserving access to the courts for plaintiffs with legitimate claims, especially in cases involving consumer reviews, business ratings, fraud claims, and certain consumer-protection actions. The bill addresses that tension by carving out exceptions and allowing limited discovery and public-health/safety injunctions, but the text does not show any specific legislator or stakeholder objecting to those choices.