Anti-SLAPP Laws in Massachusetts

Short answer Yes. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 231, § 59H permits a special motion to dismiss claims based on the movant’s petitioning activity. The motion is normally due within 60 days after service and stays discovery when filed. The court grants it unless the respondent shows the petitioning lacked reasonable factual or arguable legal support and caused actual injury; a granted motion brings costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
State
Massachusetts
Statute checked
October 6, 2026
Sources
7 statutes
Pending legislation could change this.
MA S.1250 (194th General Court, 2025-2026) (Reported favorably out of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on February 5, 2026; the official history shows no later action through October 4, 2026.): Would replace the petition-only trigger with claims based in whole or part on speech, expression, or petitioning, including media statements about goods, products, or services offered to the public; allow Attorney General intervention; and remove the current § 11I½ abusive-litigation carve-out while preserving the 60-day motion, discovery stay, and prevailing-movant fee rules. track it Status checked October 4, 2026.

At a glance

Governing lawG.L. c. 231, § 59H; 2022 amendment excludes actions under G.L. c. 12, § 11I½.
What speech/conduct is protectedStatements before or about government proceedings, likely to encourage review or enlist public participation, or otherwise protected petitioning (§ 59H).
Special motion to strike/dismissSpecial motion within 60 days of complaint service or later at court discretion; discovery stays on filing, with specified discovery possible for good cause (§ 59H).
Burden of proofMovant first ties challenged claim to petitioning; respondent then shows the petitioning had no reasonable factual or arguable legal basis and caused actual injury (§ 59H; Bristol Asphalt).
Attorney's feesCourt awards costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to movant if special motion is granted (§ 59H).
Appeal rightsDenial may receive interlocutory review under the judicial doctrine of present execution (Fabre v. Walton).
ExemptionsSpecial motion unavailable in an action under G.L. c. 12, § 11I½ (§ 59H, as amended by St. 2022, c. 127, § 35).

Requirements one by one

Petitioning scope

Chapter 231, § 59H covers a party's exercise of the constitutional right to petition. Its definition includes statements before or submitted to government bodies, statements connected to issues under their review, statements likely to encourage review or enlist public participation, and other constitutionally protected petitioning. The 2022 amendment, St. 2022, c. 127, § 35, excludes actions under chapter 12, § 11I½.

Motion, stay, and proof

The special motion is normally filed within sixty days after service of the complaint, or later at the court's discretion. Filing stays discovery; specified discovery may proceed after a hearing for good cause (§ 59H). The statute directs the court to grant the motion unless the responding party shows both that the petitioning had no reasonable factual support or arguable legal basis and that the movant's acts caused actual injury. The Supreme Judicial Court's Bristol Asphalt interpretation requires the movant first to show the challenged count has no substantial basis in conduct beyond the alleged petitioning.

Fees and appeal

A granted motion brings costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the movant, including motion and related discovery work (§ 59H). A denial can be reviewed before final judgment under the doctrine of present execution, as the Supreme Judicial Court explains in Fabre v. Walton.

What trips people up

Protected petitioning under § 59H is tied to governmental review or the constitutional right to petition. The 2022 carve-out is specifically for chapter 12, § 11I½; the half-section marker matters.

Common questions

Can the court let discovery continue? Yes. It may order specified discovery after a motion, hearing, and good-cause showing (§ 59H).

Does a successful motion automatically award fees? The statute says the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees when it grants the special motion (§ 59H).

Statutes and sources

  • G.L. c. 231, § 59H — “In any case, except a case brought pursuant to section 11I½ of chapter 12, in which a party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims, or cross claims against said party are based on said party's exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth, said party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The court shall advance any such special motion so that it may be heard and determined as expeditiously as possible. The court shall grant such special motion, unless the party against whom such special motion is made shows that: (1) the moving party's exercise of its right to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and (2) the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • G.L. c. 231, § 59H — “All discovery proceedings shall be stayed upon the filing of the special motion under this section; provided, however, that the court, on motion and after a hearing and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the special motion. Said special motion to dismiss may be filed within sixty days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • G.L. c. 231, § 59H — “If the court grants such special motion to dismiss, the court shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including those incurred for the special motion and any related discovery matters. Nothing in this section shall affect or preclude the right of the moving party to any remedy otherwise authorized by law.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • G.L. c. 231, § 59H — “As used in this section, the words ''a party's exercise of its right of petition'' shall mean any written or oral statement made before or submitted to a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive, or judicial body or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect such consideration; or any other statement falling within constitutional protection of the right to petition government.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., 493 Mass. 539 (2024) — “to survive this first stage, the proponent must show that the challenged count has no substantial basis in conduct other than or in addition to the special motion proponent’s alleged petitioning activity. If the proponent cannot make the requisite threshold showing, the special motion to dismiss is denied. If the threshold showing is made, the second stage of analysis follows.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/258e-guideline-305b-legitimate-petitioning-activity-cannot-serve-as-basis-for-c-258e-order-anti-slapp (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 (2002) — “Exxon Mobil exercised its right to interlocutory review of the denial of its special motion. See Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517, 521-522 (2002), S.C., 441 Mass. 9 (2004). This court granted the Attorney General's application for direct appellate review.” Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/may-24-2022-opinion-of-the-court/download (accessed 2026-10-06).
  • St. 2022, c. 127, § 35 — “Section 59H of chapter 231 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “case”, in line 1, the following words:- , except a case brought pursuant to section 11I½ of chapter 12,.” Source: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127 (accessed 2026-10-06).

Source links

Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.

G.L. c. 231, § 59H · accessed 2026-10-06
G.L. c. 231, § 59H · accessed 2026-10-06
G.L. c. 231, § 59H · accessed 2026-10-06
G.L. c. 231, § 59H · accessed 2026-10-06
Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 (2002) · accessed 2026-10-06
St. 2022, c. 127, § 35 · accessed 2026-10-06
This page is general legal information about a state's anti-SLAPP statute and its special motion procedure, not legal advice about your lawsuit. Whether specific speech or conduct qualifies for protection, and whether a motion will succeed, depends on case-specific facts and the state's case law interpreting the statute, neither of which this page covers. This is also one of the fastest-moving areas of state law right now, with several states enacting or amending an anti-SLAPP statute within the last two years. Verified against the official statute text on the date shown; confirm current law or consult a licensed attorney in the state before relying on it.

What does Massachusetts law mean for your facts?

You just read the general rule. Ask your own question and see which parts of current Massachusetts law apply to your situation, with citations you can check.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Starts from the statutes this survey is built on
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace