Massachusetts: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

Massachusetts has had an anti-SLAPP statute since 1994, but it is narrower
than most other states' laws: G.L. c. 231, § 59H protects only a person's
right to petition the government, not free speech generally. A defendant
sued over petitioning activity can file a special motion to dismiss within
60 days of service, automatically staying discovery. What makes
Massachusetts unusual is that the statute's own text hasn't changed the
underlying two-step test since 1994, but the Supreme Judicial Court has
twice rewritten how that test actually operates -- most recently in 2024,
when it overruled a 2017-2019 framework and restored a simpler approach.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

The anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H, was enacted in 1994. It was
last textually amended in 2022 (St.2022, c.127, § 35, effective July 29,
2022), which added a narrow carve-out for a specific kind of civil action
(described under Exemptions below). Aside from that one addition, the
statute's operative language -- the special motion, the two-part test, the
discovery stay, the fee award -- has read the same since 1994. What has
changed repeatedly is how the Supreme Judicial Court interprets that
language.

What speech or conduct is protected

Unlike California's or most UPEPA states' broad "any matter of public
concern" scope, Massachusetts protects only "a party's exercise of its
right of petition": statements made before or submitted to a government
body, statements connected to an issue under consideration by one,
statements reasonably likely to encourage such consideration or to enlist
public participation toward it, or any other statement within the
constitutional right to petition. Courts have read this to require that
the statement be made on the speaker's own behalf, not neutral third-party
reporting.

The special motion

A defendant has 60 days after being served to file the special motion, or
longer at the court's discretion. The court must advance the motion so it
can be heard "as expeditiously as possible." Filing the motion
automatically stays all discovery, though the court can allow specified
discovery on motion, after a hearing, and for good cause shown.

Burden of proof

This is the dimension where Massachusetts's law has moved the most --
entirely through case law, without a single word of the statute changing.
The movant must first show the challenged claims are "based on" petitioning
activity alone, with no substantial basis in addition to it (the Duracraft
standard, set in 1998). If that's shown, the court must grant the motion
unless the plaintiff proves the petitioning "was devoid of any reasonable
factual support or any arguable basis in law" and caused the plaintiff
actual injury. Two 2017-2019 decisions (Blanchard v. Steward Carney
Hospital) let courts split claims into petitioning and non-petitioning
pieces and gave plaintiffs an extra way to survive the motion by showing
their suit wasn't really aimed at chilling legitimate petitioning. In 2024,
the Supreme Judicial Court's Bristol Asphalt decision overruled both of
those additions, restoring the original, simpler Duracraft framework and
holding that appellate review of a special-motion ruling is de novo.

Attorney's fees

If the court grants the special motion, it must award the moving party
costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including fees for the motion itself
and any related discovery disputes. The statute doesn't provide a matching
fee award running the other way against a movant who loses.

Right to appeal

Section 59H says nothing about appeals. The right exists purely because
the Supreme Judicial Court created it: in Fabre v. Walton (2002), the
court held that a denial of the special motion is immediately appealable
under the "doctrine of present execution," reasoning that the statute's
protection against the burdens of litigation would otherwise be lost if a
defendant had to litigate the whole case before appealing. A grant of the
motion, by contrast, is already a final, appealable dismissal and needs no
special rule.

Exemptions

The statute names no general list of exempt categories the way UPEPA
states do. Its only carve-out, added in 2022, sits right in the opening
sentence: the special motion is unavailable in a case brought under G.L.
c. 12, § 11I½ -- the state's civil action for "abusive litigation" that
interferes with a person's access to reproductive or gender-affirming
health care.

What trips people up

The statute's text hasn't changed since 1994, but the operative legal
test has been rewritten twice. A brief or motion citing pre-2024 case
law under the Blanchard framework -- claim-parsing, the multifactor
"not really a SLAPP suit" escape valve -- is citing an overruled standard.
Bristol Asphalt (2024) restored the original Duracraft two-step test and
made review de novo on appeal.

The scope is narrower than reputation suggests. Because Massachusetts's
law only protects petitioning activity, a claim based on speech that never
reaches or is aimed at a government body -- a private dispute, an ordinary
business disagreement, or non-petitioning commentary -- falls outside § 59H
even if it touches a topic of public interest.

The appeal right isn't in the statute at all. Someone searching § 59H's
text for an appeal provision won't find one. It exists solely because the
Supreme Judicial Court read it into the law in Fabre v. Walton -- worth
knowing if you're trying to trace the right back to a specific statutory
subsection.

Common questions

Can I use this motion if I'm sued over a negative online review or a
private dispute that has nothing to do with government? Generally no.
Massachusetts's law only covers "petitioning" -- statements to, before, or
connected with a government proceeding -- not speech on public issues
generally.

Does filing the motion stop discovery right away? Yes. Filing the
special motion automatically stays all discovery until the court rules,
unless the court separately allows specified discovery for good cause.

If I lose my special motion, can I appeal immediately, or do I have to
wait until the whole case is over? You can appeal immediately. The
Supreme Judicial Court held in Fabre v. Walton that a denial is
immediately appealable, precisely so a defendant doesn't lose the
statute's protection by being forced to litigate the whole case first.

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." Source:
  https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• 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. ... 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 2026-07-05).
• 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." Source:
  https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c231-ss-59h
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• 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 ...; 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 2026-07-05).
• Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., 493
  Mass. 539 (2024) — "Under this simplified anti-SLAPP framework, we
  eliminate the additional analysis set forth in Blanchard I and
  Blanchard II and return to the traditional approach set out in
  Duracraft. ... we clarify that the appropriate standard of review for a
  ruling on a special motion to dismiss is de novo, rather than for an
  abuse of discretion." Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9479514/
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 (2002) — "The protections afforded by
  the anti-SLAPP statute against the harassment and burdens of litigation
  are in large measure lost if the petitioner is forced to litigate a case
  to its conclusion before obtaining a definitive judgment through the
  appellate process. Accordingly, we hold that there is a right to
  interlocutory appellate review from the denial of a special motion to
  dismiss filed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute." Source:
  https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578481/ (accessed 2026-07-05).