Indiana: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

Indiana's anti-SLAPP statute, enacted in 1998, protects a person sued over
petitioning or free-speech activity on a public issue — but it works
differently from most other states' laws. Rather than shifting a burden to
the plaintiff once you show your activity was protected, Indiana makes you
prove the whole case for dismissal yourself: that your act was lawful, taken
in good faith, and had a reasonable basis in law and fact. There's no
statutory filing deadline and no general right to an immediate appeal if you
lose, but a prevailing defendant recovers fees as a matter of course.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

Indiana Code §§ 34-7-7-1 through -10 were added in 1998 (P.L.114-1998,
SEC.7) and apply only to protected acts occurring after June 30, 1998; the
chapter expressly doesn't reach an action already filed and pending before
July 1, 1998. Every section still carries only that original 1998 enactment
note — there has been no amendment since.

What speech or conduct is protected

The chapter is narrower in scope than most later state statutes: it covers
only the right of petition and the right of free speech, with no separate
"right of association" category. Both must be "in connection with a public
issue or an issue of public interest," but the statute itself never defines
that phrase or lists example categories the way newer statutes do — Indiana
courts have filled in that gap through case law, applying it to things like
media coverage of local government and reporting on public figures.

The motion to dismiss

There's no statutory filing deadline tied to days from service — an outlier
among the states surveyed so far. Once a motion is filed, the court must
treat it as a motion for summary judgment, set an expedited discovery
schedule, and rule within 180 days. Discovery on issues unrelated to the
motion is automatically stayed the moment it's filed; only discovery
relevant to the motion itself can proceed.

Burden of proof

This is where Indiana departs most sharply from the California/UPEPA model.
There is no two-step, burden-shifting test. Instead, the movant carries the
entire load: to win, you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the challenged act is a lawful act in furtherance of your petition or
free-speech rights on a public issue. Proving the act was "lawful" folds in
the chapter's separate good-faith requirement — you must also show the act
was taken in good faith and had a reasonable basis in law and fact. The
plaintiff never has to independently prove anything to defeat the motion;
they only have to poke a hole in your proof.

Attorney's fees

A prevailing defendant on the motion recovers reasonable attorney's fees and
costs — mandatory, not discretionary. The mirror-image rule protects
plaintiffs too: if the court finds the motion itself was frivolous or filed
solely to cause unnecessary delay, the plaintiff recovers reasonable fees
and costs incurred answering it.

Right to appeal

The chapter gives no general right to an immediate appeal from a denial of
the motion. Its only built-in appeal hook is narrow and procedural: if the
court simply fails to act on the motion within 30 days after the expedited
evidence-submission period closes, the movant may appeal based on that
failure to rule — not on the merits of a denial itself.

Exemptions

The chapter doesn't apply to a government enforcement action brought in the
state's name by the attorney general, a prosecuting attorney, or another
attorney acting as a public prosecutor.

What trips people up

You can't just show your speech was protected — you have to win the case
outright. Because the burden never shifts to the plaintiff, filing this
motion means proving your underlying conduct was lawful, not just that it
touched a public issue. That's a much heavier lift than in states that only
ask you to show the claim "arises from" protected activity.

There's no clock forcing you to file fast. With no statutory filing
deadline, don't assume you have unlimited time — courts still expect the
motion filed promptly given its summary-judgment treatment — but the chapter
itself sets no fixed number of days, unlike most other states' 45-to-60-day
windows.

Losing the motion doesn't get you an automatic appeal. Unlike states
where any grant or denial is immediately appealable, Indiana's statute only
lets you appeal if the court fails to rule within its own 30-day deadline —
a denial on the merits has no special interlocutory appeal route built into
this chapter.

"Lawful" has real teeth, and not every speech-related dispute qualifies as
a "public issue." In Hamilton v. Prewett (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), the court
found a satirical website wasn't shown to concern a public issue at all,
so the anti-SLAPP statute didn't apply even though the underlying speech was
protected on other, non-statutory grounds.

Common questions

What exactly do I have to prove to win an anti-SLAPP motion in Indiana?
Two things together, by a preponderance of the evidence: that your act was
in furtherance of your right of petition or free speech on a public issue,
and that it was taken in good faith with a reasonable basis in law and fact.

If I lose my motion, do I have to pay the plaintiff's fees?
Only if the court finds the motion was frivolous or filed solely to cause
unnecessary delay. Losing on the merits alone doesn't trigger a fee award
against you.

Can I appeal right away if the court denies my motion?
Not under this chapter. The only appeal right it gives you is if the court
fails to rule within 30 days of the close of the expedited evidence period —
a denial on the merits doesn't come with its own immediate appeal.

Does every lawsuit touching on speech qualify for this defense?
No. Courts have found that speech aimed at a purely personal dispute, rather
than a genuine public issue or issue of public interest, falls outside the
statute even when the underlying claims are otherwise weak.

Statutes and sources

• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-1 — "This chapter applies to an act in furtherance
  of a person's right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of
  the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana in
  connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest that arises
  after June 30, 1998... This chapter does not apply to an enforcement
  action brought in the name of the state of Indiana by the attorney
  general, a prosecuting attorney, or another attorney acting as a public
  prosecutor." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-2 — "\"act in furtherance of a person's right of
  petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States or the
  Constitution of the State of Indiana in connection with a public issue\"
  includes any conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional
  right of: (1) petition; or (2) free speech; in connection with a public
  issue or an issue of public interest." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 — "It is a defense in a civil action against a
  person that the act or omission complained of is: (1) an act or omission
  of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free
  speech under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of
  the State of Indiana in connection with a public issue; and (2) an act or
  omission taken in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact."
  Source: https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-6 — "All discovery proceedings in the action are
  stayed upon the filing of a motion to dismiss made under this chapter,
  except for discovery relevant to the motion." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-7 — "A prevailing defendant on a motion to dismiss
  made under this chapter is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees
  and costs." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-8 — "If a court finds that a motion to dismiss made
  under this chapter is: (1) frivolous; or (2) solely intended to cause
  unnecessary delay; the plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable
  attorney's fees and costs to answer the motion." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 — "If a person files a motion to dismiss under
  this chapter, the court in which the motion is filed shall do the
  following: (1) Treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment. (2)
  Establish a reasonable time period, not to exceed one hundred eighty (180)
  days, to expedite and rule on the motion... The motion to dismiss shall be
  granted if the court finds that the person filing the motion has proven,
  by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act upon which the claim is
  based is a lawful act in furtherance of the person's right of petition or
  free speech... If a court does not act within the thirty (30) days
  provided in subsection (e), the person filing the motion may appeal the
  matter based on the court's failure to rule on the motion." Source:
  https://iga.in.gov/ic/2025/Title_34/Article_7/Chapter_7.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).