Anti-SLAPP Laws in Florida

At a glance

Requirements one by one

Governing law

Florida's original anti-SLAPP law, enacted in 2000 as the Citizen Participation in Government Act, only stopped governmental entities from filing SLAPP suits. A 2015 amendment expanded the law to also cover suits by private plaintiffs and broadened the kinds of protected activity it covers. Florida separately has two narrower anti-SLAPP statutes outside section 768.295: one for homeowners' association disputes (§ 720.304(4)) and one for condominium association disputes (§ 718.1224), each following a similar structure to the general law but limited to that specific context.

What speech or conduct is protected

The statute protects "free speech in connection with public issues," defined as a written or oral statement protected under applicable law that is either made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under that entity's consideration or review, or made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or similar work. It also separately protects the rights to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, and to petition for redress of grievances before Florida's governmental entities.

The motion to dismiss or for summary judgment

A person sued in violation of the statute may move the court for an order dismissing the action, or move for summary judgment (with supplemental affidavits) seeking a determination that the suit violates the statute. The statute sets no fixed number of days to file this motion and, unlike most other states, does not automatically suspend discovery while the motion is pending. What it does require is speed on the back end: "as soon as practicable," the court must set a hearing, to be held "at the earliest possible time" after the opposing side's response is filed.

Burden of proof

Section 768.295 does not spell out a formal, multi-step burden-shifting test the way California's or Texas's statutes do. Its substantive prohibition is that a person or governmental entity "may not file or cause to be filed" a lawsuit "without merit and primarily because" the defendant exercised a protected right — so the moving party's task is to show the suit meets that description. Florida courts have developed their own case-law framework for applying this standard in practice, but that framework isn't written into the statute's text itself.

Attorney's fees

Whichever party prevails on the motion — the person who filed it or the person defending against it — is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with the claim that the suit violated the statute. Separately, if a governmental entity is found to have violated the statute, the court may award the sued party actual damages, though any damages award against the government remains subject to the general sovereign-immunity limits in section 768.28.

Right to appeal

The text of section 768.295 itself says nothing about appealing a ruling on the motion. For years this left a real gap: a defendant who lost the motion had no guaranteed way to get appellate review before the case went to trial. That changed on March 27, 2025, when the Florida Supreme Court, in Vericker v. Powell, held that certiorari review of a denial is not available, but at the same time amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to add a new category of immediately appealable nonfinal orders: an order that denies a motion under section 768.295(4) (or the parallel HOA and condominium anti-SLAPP statutes). A defendant who loses the motion can now take a direct interlocutory appeal instead.

Exemptions

Section 768.295 doesn't contain a list of exempted claim types the way some other states' anti-SLAPP statutes do. Instead, its own built-in limit is that it reaches only a suit that is "without merit and primarily because" of the protected activity — a suit with real merit, or one only incidentally touching protected activity, simply falls outside the statute on its own terms rather than being carved out by a separate exemptions section.

What trips people up

No automatic discovery stay is a real practical difference from most other states. Filing the motion doesn't pause the case the way it would in California or Texas; a defendant relying on this motion should not assume litigation costs stop accruing while it's pending.

The interlocutory appeal right is brand new (2025) — older cases and articles will say there isn't one. Before the March 2025 rule amendment, a losing defendant's only avenue was a certiorari petition, and the Florida Supreme Court has now confirmed that route doesn't work either. Anything written about Florida's anti-SLAPP appeal rights before that date describes a gap that no longer exists.

"Without merit and primarily because" is a real, and different, threshold from other states' "probability of prevailing" tests. Because the statute's own text frames the standard this way rather than as a burden-shifting evidentiary test, don't assume Florida's practice mirrors California's or Texas's mechanics just because the underlying goal is the same.

Common questions

Does filing the motion stop discovery while I wait for a ruling? No — Florida's statute doesn't include the automatic discovery stay that some other states' anti-SLAPP laws provide.

Can I appeal right away if the judge denies my motion? Yes, as of the March 2025 rule change. Before that, a denial could not be immediately appealed or reviewed by certiorari petition.

Does this apply to a dispute with my homeowners' association? Possibly, but under a different, narrower statute — section 720.304(4) — rather than the general anti-SLAPP law described on this page; a similar separate statute, section 718.1224, applies to condominium association disputes.

Statutes and sources

• Fla. Stat. § 768.295 — "(3) A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against another person or entity without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. (4) A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A person or entity may move the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that person or entity... As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant's or governmental entity's response... The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section." Source: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.295.html (accessed 2026-08-11).
• Fla. Stat. § 720.304(4)(b)-(c) — homeowners' association anti-SLAPP prohibition, expedited motion, damages, and prevailing-party fees. Source: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/Sections/0720.304.html (accessed 2026-08-11).
• Fla. Stat. § 718.1224(2), (5) — parallel condominium-unit-owner prohibition and motion procedure. Source: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/Sections/0718.1224.html (accessed 2026-08-11).
• Fla. Stat. § 768.28(5)(a) — sovereign-immunity liability limits that apply to actual damages awarded against a governmental entity under § 768.295(4). Source: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.28.html (accessed 2026-08-11).
• Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(J) — "Appeals to the district courts of appeal of nonfinal orders are limited to those that: ... (J) deny a motion under section 718.1224(5), 720.304(4)(c), or 768.295(4), Florida Statutes." Adopted by the Florida Supreme Court on March 27, 2025 in In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC2024-1798, alongside the companion opinion Vericker v. Powell, No. SC2022-1042 (Fla. Mar. 27, 2025) (holding certiorari review of a denial unavailable). Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-supreme-court/117099499.html (accessed 2026-07-05).