West Virginia: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

West Virginia does not have an anti-SLAPP statute. There's no special
motion to strike or dismiss, no automatic stay of discovery, and no
SLAPP-specific right to recover attorney's fees. This isn't for lack of
trying — lawmakers have introduced at least seven separate bills to adopt
a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act since 2020, and
every single one died in committee, most recently a 2026 bill that never
got a vote before the legislature's session ended. There is one real
protection, though it's much narrower than a full anti-SLAPP law: the
West Virginia Supreme Court has held that a statement connected to
petitioning the government — testimony at a public meeting, for
example — is protected by the same "actual malice" standard used in
defamation suits against public officials. A plaintiff suing over that
kind of statement has to prove the defendant knew it was false or
recklessly disregarded the truth. That's a real substantive defense, but
you prove it over the course of the case like any other element of a
defamation claim — it isn't an early, expedited motion that stops the
case in its tracks the way a true anti-SLAPP statute would.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

There is no anti-SLAPP statute currently in force or pending in West
Virginia. The state has seen an unusually persistent string of failed
attempts: HB 4726 and HB 4782 in 2020, HB 2485 and HB 2716 in 2021
(reintroduced in 2022), SB 469 and HB 4912 in 2024, HB 2756 in 2025, and
HB 4866 in 2026 (titled the "West Virginia Public Participation
Protection Act") all died in committee without a floor vote. HB 4866 was
referred to House Judiciary on January 28, 2026, and died when the
legislature adjourned for the year on March 14, 2026, without acting on
it. No anti-SLAPP bill is currently pending.

What speech or conduct would be protected

Not applicable as a statutory matter — there's no statute defining a
protected category. But West Virginia courts have carved out one real
protection: the state constitution's right to petition the government
(comparable to the First Amendment) is protected by the actual-malice
standard, meaning a defendant sued over a statement connected to
petitioning a government body can't be held liable for defamation unless
the plaintiff proves the statement was made knowing it was false or with
reckless disregard for the truth. This only reaches petitioning-related
speech — testimony or statements to a legislative, executive, or judicial
body — not the broader public-forum or general public-interest speech
that most anti-SLAPP statutes elsewhere cover.

The special motion that doesn't exist

There is no special motion to strike or dismiss a claim based on
protected speech. A defendant must use an ordinary motion to dismiss or a
motion for summary judgment under the West Virginia Rules of Civil
Procedure, on the normal civil-procedure timeline, with no automatic stay
of discovery while the motion is pending.

Burden of proof

Because there's no anti-SLAPP statute, there's no special early
burden-shifting test. Ordinary pleading-sufficiency and
summary-judgment standards apply to any motion. Where the actual-malice
protection for petitioning speech does apply, the plaintiff carries the
burden of proving actual malice as part of winning the underlying case —
but that's a substantive element decided like any other part of a
defamation claim, not a threshold showing resolved early on a special
motion the way a true anti-SLAPP statute would require.

Attorney's fees

There's no SLAPP-specific fee-shifting rule. The general tool available
in any West Virginia civil case is Rule 11(c): after notice and a chance
to respond, a court can sanction an attorney, law firm, or party who
violated Rule 11(b)'s certification requirements — for example, filing
something for an improper purpose like harassment, or asserting legal
claims unwarranted by existing law. A sanction can include ordering
payment of the other side's reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, but
it requires its own separate motion and showing, isn't automatic, and
isn't limited to or tailored for speech-based cases.

Right to appeal

There's no special interlocutory appeal right tied to a ruling on a
speech-based motion. Ordinary West Virginia rules on final judgments and
permissive interlocutory appeals apply, the same as in any other civil
case.

Exemptions

Not applicable — there's no statute to carve exemptions from.

What trips people up

Seven failed bills is not a law. West Virginia lawmakers have
introduced a UPEPA-style bill in nearly every session since 2020, and
every one has died in committee — don't assume a new attempt this year or
next will fare any differently, or that the state is on the verge of
adopting one.

The actual-malice protection only covers petitioning speech, not
general public commentary. If you're sued over testimony at a city
council meeting or a similar statement to a government body, Harris v.
Adkins may protect you. If you're sued over a negative online review or
general political commentary unconnected to a government proceeding, this
case-law protection doesn't reach it, and you have no faster path than an
ordinary motion to dismiss or summary judgment.

Proving actual malice isn't the same as winning an early motion.
Actual malice is something the plaintiff has to fail to prove for you to
win — it's litigated like any other element of the case, typically
through discovery and potentially trial, not decided in a quick
threshold hearing the way an anti-SLAPP special motion would be.

There's no discovery stay while you fight the underlying claim.
Without a special motion, discovery proceeds on the normal timeline
regardless of whether you believe the lawsuit targets protected speech.

Common questions

Does West Virginia have any fast way to get a meritless lawsuit over my
speech thrown out? Not through a SLAPP-specific procedure — the state
doesn't have one. You'd use an ordinary motion to dismiss or motion for
summary judgment, which takes the normal amount of time and comes with no
automatic discovery stay or guaranteed fee award.

I made a statement at a public county commission meeting and got sued
for defamation — does anything protect me? Possibly. If your statement
was connected to petitioning the government, the plaintiff has to prove
you made it knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the
truth, under Harris v. Adkins. That's a real, though not automatic,
protection.

Is West Virginia likely to pass an anti-SLAPP law soon? There's no
way to know for certain, but the track record so far isn't encouraging —
seven bills since 2020 have all died in committee, and no bill is
currently pending.

Statutes and sources

• Harris v. Adkins, 189 W.Va. 465, 432 S.E.2d 549 (1993), Syllabus
  Point 1 — "The right to petition the government found in Section 16
  of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution is comparable to that
  found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It does
  not provide an absolute privilege for intentional and reckless
  falsehoods, but the right is protected by the actual malice standard of
  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan... To the extent that Webb v. Fury...
  states to the contrary, it is overruled." Source:
  https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/harris-v-adkins-no-888292731 (accessed
  2026-07-05).
• W. Va. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)-(2) — "If, after notice and a reasonable
  opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has
  been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction upon any
  attorney, law firm or party that violated the rule... If warranted, the
  court may award to the prevailing party reasonable expenses and
  attorney fees, and other expenses." Source:
  https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2025-01/WestVirginiaRulesofCivilProcedure.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• W. Va. R. Civ. P. 11(b) — "By presenting to the court a pleading,
  motion or other paper... an attorney or unrepresented party certifies
  that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief
  formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is
  not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
  unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase in the cost of litigation..."
  Source:
  https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2025-01/WestVirginiaRulesofCivilProcedure.pdf
  (accessed 2026-07-05).