Anti-SLAPP Laws in District of Columbia

At a glance

Requirements one by one

What activity is protected?

The Act covers statements connected to an official proceeding, statements in a public place or forum on an issue of public interest, and other expression petitioning government or communicating public-interest views. Its definition of public interest includes health, safety, community well-being, District government and public figures, but excludes statements aimed primarily at protecting the speaker's own commercial interest (§ 16-5501).

Special motion procedure and burden

A party must file the special motion within 45 days after service. The movant first shows that the claim arises from protected advocacy; the responding party then must show the claim is likely to succeed on the merits. A grant dismisses the claim with prejudice (§ 16-5502(a), (b), (d)). The separate § 16-5503 motion can quash a request for personal identifying information tied to a protected-activity claim.

Fees and appeal

The court may award costs and reasonable fees to a prevailing movant. The responding party can receive fees only if the special motion was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay (§ 16-5504). The D.C. Court of Appeals permits an immediate appeal from denial of a special motion to dismiss under the collateral-order doctrine (Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann).

Exemptions

The Act excludes a specified commercial sales claim when a seller's factual representation targets an actual or potential buyer or customer. It also excludes claims brought by the District government, including District public charter schools (§ 16-5505). The permanent government-claim amendment was enacted in D.C. Law 24-344 in 2023; the section applies it back to March 31, 2011, and to claims pending as of November 8, 2021.

What trips people up

The printed § 16-5502(c) still says filing the motion stays discovery. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that discovery-limiting provision invalid in Banks v. Hoffman (2023), so the printed clause cannot be treated as an operative automatic stay. Mann also explains the merits test as whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably find for the claimant on the evidence, including applicable heightened standards.

Common questions

Does losing a motion automatically mean paying the plaintiff's fees? No. Section 16-5504(b) requires a finding that the motion was frivolous or solely intended to delay.

Does the Act protect a business's sales pitch? The § 16-5505(a)(1) exemption can exclude a factual sales representation aimed at an actual or potential buyer or customer when its other conditions are met.

Statutes and sources

• D.C. Code § 16-5501(1), (3) — “For the purposes of this chapter, the term: (1) “Act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest” means: (A) Any written or oral statement made: (i) In connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or (ii) In a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or (B) Any other expression or expressive conduct that involves petitioning the government or communicating views to members of the public in connection with an issue of public interest. (2) “Claim” includes any civil lawsuit, claim, complaint, cause of action, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other civil judicial pleading or filing requesting relief. (3) “Issue of public interest” means an issue related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well-being; the District government; a public figure; or a good, product, or service in the market place. The term “issue of public interest” shall not be construed to include private interests, such as statements directed primarily toward protecting the speaker’s commercial interests rather than toward commenting on or sharing information about a matter of public significance. (4) “Personal identifying information” shall have the same meaning as provided in § 22-3227.01(3).” — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-5501 (accessed 2026-10-07).
• D.C. Code § 16-5502 — “(a) A party may file a special motion to dismiss any claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest within 45 days after service of the claim. (b) If a party filing a special motion to dismiss under this section makes a prima facie showing that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest, then the motion shall be granted unless the responding party demonstrates that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits, in which case the motion shall be denied. (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, upon the filing of a special motion to dismiss, discovery proceedings on the claim shall be stayed until the motion has been disposed of. (2) When it appears likely that targeted discovery will enable the plaintiff to defeat the motion and that the discovery will not be unduly burdensome, the court may order that specified discovery be conducted. Such an order may be conditioned upon the plaintiff paying any expenses incurred by the defendant in responding to such discovery. (d) The court shall hold an expedited hearing on the special motion to dismiss, and issue a ruling as soon as practicable after the hearing. If the special motion to dismiss is granted, dismissal shall be with prejudice.” — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-5502 (accessed 2026-10-07).
• D.C. Code § 16-5503 — “(a) A person whose personal identifying information is sought, pursuant to a discovery order, request, or subpoena, in connection with a claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest may make a special motion to quash the discovery order, request, or subpoena. (b) If a person bringing a special motion to quash under this section makes a prima facie showing that the underlying claim arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest, then the motion shall be granted unless the party seeking his or her personal identifying information demonstrates that the underlying claim is likely to succeed on the merits, in which case the motion shall be denied.” — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-5503 (accessed 2026-10-07).
• D.C. Code § 16-5504 — “(a) The court may award a moving party who prevails, in whole or in part, on a motion brought under § 16-5502 or § 16-5503 the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees. (b) The court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the responding party only if the court finds that a motion brought under § 16-5502 or § 16-5503 is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-5504 (accessed 2026-10-07).
• D.C. Code § 16-5505 — “(a) This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim for relief brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, if the statement or conduct from which the claim arises is: (A) A representation of fact made for the purpose of promoting, securing, or completing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, the person's goods or services; and (B) The intended audience is an actual or potential buyer or customer; and (2) Any claim brought by the District government, including District public charter schools. (b) Subsection (a)(2) of this section shall apply: (1) As of March 31, 2011; and (2) To any claims pending as of [November 8, 2021].” — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-5505 (accessed 2026-10-07).
• Banks v. Hoffman, No. 20-CV-0318 (D.C. Sept. 7, 2023) — “we agree that the Home Rule Act, and in particular its preservation of Title 11 of the D.C. Code, precluded the Superior Court from giving effect to the discovery-limiting aspects of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act's special-motion-to-dismiss provisions.” — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9425025/banks-v-hoffman/ (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016) — “As a preliminary matter, we hold that we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear appellants' interlocutory appeals of the trial court's denial of their special motions to dismiss filed under the Anti-SLAPP Act. ... The precise question the court must ask, therefore, is whether a jury properly instructed on the law, including any applicable heightened fault and proof requirements, could reasonably find for the claimant on the evidence presented.” — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4332698/competitive-enterprise-institute-and-rand-simberg-v-michael-e-mann/ (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Doe v. Burke, 133 A.3d 569 (D.C. 2016) — “We now read D.C. Code § 16-5504(a) in similar fashion: it entitles the moving party who prevails on a special motion to quash to a presumptive award of reasonable attorney's fees on request, 'unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.'” — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3184301/john-doe-no-1-v-susan-l-burke/ (accessed 2026-07-05).