FLORIDA ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute (§768.295, Fla. Stat.) has been applied in various cases since its 2015 expansion to cover private plaintiffs and broader speech on public issues.

SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

While not as frequently litigated or procedurally aggressive as California’s anti-SLAPP law (lacking automatic discovery stays or special motions to strike in some interpretations), it has led to successful dismissals, fee awards, and appellate clarifications that protect free speech.

Below are key Florida Anti-SLAPP statute case studies illustrating its application, focusing on successful invocations by defendants (often resulting in dismissal and mandatory attorney fees/costs for the prevailing party when the suit is deemed meritless and primarily retaliatory against protected speech).

Successful Anti-SLAPP Motions and Fee Awards

Parekh v. CBS Corporation (federal court, affirmed on appeal, 2020): Plaintiff sued CBS over a news report allegedly portraying him as a “scam” or liar. The court dismissed the defamation and emotional distress claims, finding them without merit and arising from CBS’s protected free speech in a news report (a covered “audiovisual work” or “news report” under §768.295(2)(a)). Defendants were awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (totaling around $140,000 in one related ruling). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed aspects, highlighting the statute’s fee-shifting as a deterrent to chilling journalism on public issues.
Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc. (2021, federal court in Florida): Plaintiff sued Twitter over actions related to content moderation (e.g., labeling or restricting posts). The court found the suit fell under Florida’s anti-SLAPP law as targeting protected speech/platform decisions tied to public issues. Twitter’s motion succeeded, leading to dismissal and a mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant.
Mishiyev v. Davis/Beasley Media Group (2023, Hillsborough County Circuit Court; appealed 2025): A plaintiff sued a radio host and media company for defamation and interference claims stemming from on-air comments and social media statements (e.g., roasting the plaintiff as a “bad DJ” and claiming influence over career setbacks). The court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. It found the suit without merit (e.g., time-barred statements, non-defamatory, or duplicative under Florida’s single-action rule) and primarily aimed at chilling defendants’ free speech on public/ media matters. Defendants were awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, with the court emphasizing the statute’s purpose to prevent litigation from punishing protected expression.
AnyTime Gutter & Screening v. Loiacono (2016, Palm Beach County Court): A contractor sued a homeowner over a negative online review posted on RipOff Report. The defendant invoked §768.295 early, and the court granted the anti-SLAPP motion after a hearing, dismissing the case as meritless and retaliatory against protected consumer speech on a public issue (business practices). This is an early post-2015 example of the law protecting online reviews.

Notable Applications and Florida Anti-SLAPP Statute Developments

Baird v. Mason Classical Academy, Inc. (2021): A charter school sued a parent for tortious interference over a campaign affecting school contracts. The court addressed anti-SLAPP applicability, illustrating its use in disputes over public education/governance speech, though outcomes varied on procedural burdens.
Animal Aid cases (e.g., related to Lee v. Animal Aid, 2024): In one instance, a nonprofit sued a former volunteer for defamation. Anti-SLAPP was raised, but fees were denied where no formal ruling found the suit violated the statute (highlighting that mere assertion as a defense isn’t enough—courts require a determination on merit and primary purpose). This shows limitations: fees go only to the prevailing party after a violation finding.
Vericker v. Powell (Florida Supreme Court, 2025): A blogger faced a defamation suit from a city attorney over blog posts questioning credentials/competency (public official speech). The blogger’s combined summary judgment/anti-SLAPP motion was denied at trial. On review, the Supreme Court clarified that denials of anti-SLAPP motions aren’t immediately certiorari-reviewable for irreparable harm but amended appellate rules to allow interlocutory appeals of such denials (aligning with statutes like §768.295 to ensure “expeditious” resolution). This strengthens protections by enabling faster appellate oversight.

Broader Insights on Application

Florida courts often treat anti-SLAPP motions as enhanced summary judgment or dismissal requests under existing rules (e.g., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510/1.140), requiring defendants to show prima facie protected activity and plaintiffs to prove merit/non-retaliatory purpose. Successful cases typically involve media, online speech, public commentary, or petitions on issues like local governance, consumer reviews, or journalism. Fee awards are mandatory for prevailing defendants when a violation is found, deterring SLAPPs. However, not all motions succeed—courts scrutinize whether speech ties to “public issues” and if the suit is truly meritless/primarily chilling.

No prominent Cape Coral-specific anti-SLAPP cases appear in public records, but the statute applies statewide (including Lee County), protecting local activism, HOA disputes (via §720.304(4)), or public comments. If you’re dealing with a potential SLAPP in Cape Coral (e.g., related to local development, city issues, or online speech), these precedents show early motions can lead to quick dismissals and cost recovery.