South Carolina: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

South Carolina does not have an anti-SLAPP statute. If you're sued over
speech, petitioning, or association activity here, there is no special
motion to dismiss, no automatic stay of discovery, and no SLAPP-specific
right to recover attorney's fees. Your tools are an ordinary motion to
dismiss or motion for summary judgment, the state's general frivolous-
litigation sanctions statute, and whatever defamation-law defenses apply to
your facts. Two different anti-SLAPP bills are currently competing for
passage in the legislature, using two different national models.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

There is no anti-SLAPP statute currently in force. Two bills are pending in
the same 2025-2026 legislative session, and they are not the same bill:
H.3305 (with an identical Senate companion, S.43) would enact a "South
Carolina Public Expression Protection Act" modeled on the Uniform Law
Commission's UPEPA. It passed the House 112-0 on March 25, 2025, was
amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was read a second time in
the full Senate on May 1, 2025 — with no recorded action since, as of this
writing. H.5420, introduced a year later on March 25, 2026, is a rival bill
called the "South Carolina Citizens Participation Act," modeled instead on
the older Texas Citizens Participation Act framework. It is still sitting
in the House Judiciary Committee. Both would add a new Article 7 to Chapter
3 of Title 15, so only one — if either — can ultimately become law in its
current form.

What speech or conduct would be protected

The two bills define protected activity differently. H.3305's UPEPA-style
definition covers a defendant's communication in or about a governmental
proceeding, and the exercise of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or
association rights on a matter of public concern — a short, modern
definition. H.5420 instead uses the longer, older TCPA-style approach: it
separately defines "exercise of the right of free speech," "right to
petition," and "right of association," with a nine-part list of what counts
as an "official proceeding" and a three-part definition of "matter of
public concern." Neither definition is in force today.

The special motion that doesn't exist

Under H.3305, a defendant would file a "special motion for expedited
relief" within 60 days of service, triggering an automatic stay of all
discovery, with a hearing required within 60 days and a ruling within 30
days after that. Under H.5420, a defendant would instead file an ordinary-
sounding "motion to dismiss" within 60 days of service, which suspends
discovery until ruled on; the hearing must happen within 60 to 90 days
(stretched to 120 if the court allows discovery), with a ruling due 30 days
after the hearing concludes. Neither procedure exists today — a defendant
sued over speech in South Carolina must use the ordinary motion-to-dismiss
or summary-judgment rules, on the ordinary civil-procedure timeline, with no
special stay of discovery.

Burden of proof

Because there is no statute, there is no special burden-shifting test.
H.3305 would use a modern, Rule 56-style screen: the movant shows the Act
applies, and the claim is dismissed unless the responding party shows a
triable claim or the movant wins as a matter of law. H.5420 would instead
use the older "clear and specific evidence" prima facie standard drawn from
the Texas Citizens Participation Act — historically read as a somewhat
higher bar for a plaintiff to clear than the newer UPEPA screen. Today,
neither applies; ordinary pleading-sufficiency and summary-judgment
standards govern instead.

Attorney's fees

There is no SLAPP-specific fee-shifting rule in force. The state's general
Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, S.C. Code § 15-36-10, lets a
court sanction an attorney or pro se litigant for filing a frivolous
pleading or motion, on the same terms as in any other civil case — it isn't
tailored to speech-based claims and requires its own separate showing.
Both pending bills would add mandatory fees for a prevailing movant on the
new special motion; H.5420 additionally lets the court impose discretionary
sanctions against a losing plaintiff to deter repeat filings, on top of the
mandatory fee award.

Right to appeal

There is no special interlocutory appeal right tied to a SLAPP-type motion
today. H.3305 would give only the moving party a right to appeal a denial,
filed within 30 days. H.5420 goes further: if the court simply fails to
rule within its deadline, that inaction itself would count as a denial by
operation of law, and the moving party could take an expedited appeal from
either the denial or the non-ruling.

Exemptions

Not applicable — there is no statute to carve exemptions from. If enacted,
H.3305's exemption would be narrow (claims against a government entity or
official acting in an official capacity). H.5420's list is much longer: 13
named carve-outs, including commercial-speech claims tied to a defendant's
own sale of goods or services, insurance-code claims, bodily-injury and
wrongful-death claims, employment and family-law matters, evictions, and
attorney-discipline proceedings — with three of those carve-outs (the
commercial-speech, insurance-code, and fraud exemptions) then partly
restored for claims that really target journalism, artistic works, or
consumer reviews.

What trips people up

"Passed the House 112-0" doesn't mean it's law. H.3305 cleared the
South Carolina House unanimously back in March 2025, which is easy to
mistake for a finished anti-SLAPP statute. It has been sitting in the
Senate, with no further floor action, for well over a year as of this
writing.

Two different bills means two different outcomes are still possible.
Unlike a typical pending-bill situation, South Carolina currently has
competing anti-SLAPP proposals using genuinely different national models
(UPEPA vs. the older Texas TCPA approach) in the same session. Which one
(if either) eventually passes will determine which burden-of-proof standard
and exemptions list actually apply — don't assume either bill's specific
details will be the final law.

There's no SLAPP-specific fee award today, but there is a general
sanctions tool. The Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act can punish
a genuinely baseless lawsuit, but it isn't automatic, isn't tailored to
speech cases, and requires its own separate motion and showing — it's not
a substitute for an anti-SLAPP special motion.

Common questions

If I'm sued over a negative online review of a local business, can I get
the case thrown out quickly? Not through any SLAPP-specific procedure —
South Carolina doesn't have one yet. You'd need to win an ordinary motion
to dismiss or motion for summary judgment on the merits, which takes longer
and comes with no automatic discovery stay or guaranteed fee award.

Is South Carolina likely to get an anti-SLAPP law soon? There's no way
to know for certain. H.3305 passed the House unanimously and reached a
second Senate reading, but has been stalled for over a year; H.5420 is a
newer, competing bill that is still in its first House committee. Either,
both, or neither could move in the remainder of the 2025-2026 session.

Can I use another state's anti-SLAPP law if I'm sued in South Carolina?
Generally no — a state's anti-SLAPP statute is that state's own procedural
tool and doesn't travel with you into a South Carolina court just because
you're being sued over online speech.

Statutes and sources

• S.C. Code § 15-36-10 — "The signature of an attorney or a pro se
  litigant constitutes a certificate to the court that... a reasonable
  attorney in the same circumstances would believe his claim or defense is
  not frivolous, interposed for delay, or brought for any purpose other
  than securing proper discovery... the court, upon its own motion or
  motion of a party, may impose upon the person in violation any sanction
  which the court considers just, equitable, and proper under the
  circumstances." Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c036.php
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• 2025 S.C. H.3305, proposed § 15-3-910(B)-(C) (pending, not enacted) —
  "[T]his article applies to a cause of action asserted in a civil action
  against a person based on the person's: (1) communication in a
  legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental
  proceeding... or (3) exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the
  press, the right to assemble or petition, or right of association...
  This article does not apply to a cause of action asserted against a
  governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting
  or purporting to act in an official capacity." Source:
  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/3305.htm (accessed
  2026-07-05). Pending in the Senate; not enacted.
• 2025 S.C. H.3305, proposed §§ 15-3-920, 15-3-960, 15-3-985 (pending,
  not enacted) — "Not later than sixty days after a party is served...
  the party may file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the
  cause of action... the court shall dismiss with prejudice a cause of
  action... if... there is no genuine issue to any material fact and the
  moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law... A moving party
  may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying, in whole or in
  part, a motion pursuant to Section 15-3-920." Source:
  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/3305.htm (accessed
  2026-07-05). Pending in the Senate; not enacted.
• 2025 S.C. H.3305, proposed § 15-3-980 (pending, not enacted) — "[T]he
  court shall award court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and reasonable
  litigation expenses related to the motion: to the moving party if the
  moving party prevails on the motion; or to the responding party if the
  responding party prevails on the motion and the court finds that the
  motion was frivolous or filed solely with intent to delay the
  proceeding." Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/3305.htm
  (accessed 2026-07-05). Pending in the Senate; not enacted.
• 2026 S.C. H.5420, proposed § 15-3-930(A)-(C) (pending, not enacted) —
  "If a legal action is based on or is in response to a party's exercise of
  the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association...
  that party may file a motion to dismiss the legal action... must be filed
  no later than the sixtieth day after the date of service... all
  discovery in the legal action is suspended until the court has ruled on
  the motion to dismiss." Source:
  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/5420.htm (accessed
  2026-07-05). Pending in House committee; not enacted.
• 2026 S.C. H.5420, proposed § 15-3-950(B)-(D) (pending, not enacted) —
  "[A] court shall dismiss a legal action against the moving party if the
  moving party demonstrates that the legal action is based on or is in
  response to... the party's exercise of: the right of free speech; the
  right to petition; or the right of association... The court may not
  dismiss a legal action under this section if the party bringing the legal
  action establishes by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for
  each essential element of the claim in question." Source:
  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/5420.htm (accessed
  2026-07-05). Pending in House committee; not enacted.
• 2026 S.C. H.5420, proposed §§ 15-3-990, 15-3-1000 (pending, not
  enacted) — "If a court does not rule on a motion to dismiss... in the
  time prescribed by Section 15-3-950, the motion is considered to have
  been denied by operation of law and the moving party may appeal... if the
  court orders dismissal of a legal action under this article, the court:
  shall award to the moving party court costs and reasonable attorney's
  fees incurred in defending against the legal action; and may award to the
  moving party sanctions against the party who brought the legal action..."
  Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/5420.htm
  (accessed 2026-07-05). Pending in House committee; not enacted.
• 2026 S.C. H.5420, proposed § 15-3-1010 (pending, not enacted) —
  "This article does not apply to: an enforcement action that is brought
  in the name of this State or a political subdivision of this State; a
  legal action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business
  of selling or leasing goods or services... a legal action seeking
  recovery for bodily injury, wrongful death, or survival... Notwithstanding
  subsection (A)(2), (7), and (12), this article applies to: a legal action
  against a person arising from any act of that person... for the creation,
  dissemination, exhibition, or advertisement... of a dramatic, literary,
  musical, political, journalistic, or otherwise artistic work... and a
  legal action against a person related to the communication... of
  consumer opinions or commentary... reviews or ratings of businesses."
  Source: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/5420.htm
  (accessed 2026-07-05). Pending in House committee; not enacted.