Anti-SLAPP Laws in Wisconsin

At a glance

Requirements one by one

Governing law

There is none currently in force. A bill adopting the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, 2025 Assembly Bill 701, was introduced December 1, 2025 with bipartisan sponsors, reported out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee 8-0, and passed the full Assembly on a voice vote on February 17, 2026 after the rules were suspended to move it through a second and third reading the same day. Its identical companion, Senate Bill 666, was introduced separately in the Senate. The official histories record that A.B. 701 "Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1" and S.B. 666 "Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1" on March 23, 2026. Because Wisconsin runs on a two-year legislative biennium, no successor bill can be introduced until the next session convenes in January 2027.

What speech or conduct would have been protected

The 2026 bill would have covered a defendant's communication in a governmental proceeding, a communication on an issue under consideration or review by a government body, or the exercise of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on a matter of public concern, Wisconsin's own copy of the national Uniform Public Expression Protection Act text, down to its exemptions for government-enforcement actions and commercial sale-or-lease communications. None of that is in force today. Wisconsin courts have not developed a separate constitutional or common-law petitioning-immunity doctrine to fill the gap either; a defendant sued over speech here relies on ordinary defamation-law defenses under general Wisconsin tort law, truth, non-defamatory opinion, and, for a public-figure plaintiff, the actual-malice standard.

The special motion that doesn't exist

The 2026 bill would have let a defendant file a speech-specific "special motion for expedited relief" within 60 days of being served, with a stay lasting through the motion and any appeal. That procedure was not enacted. A defendant sued over protected speech in Wisconsin instead uses an ordinary motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment. Section 802.06(1)(b) gives the ordinary dismissal motion a general stay of discovery and other proceedings for up to 180 days or until the court rules, whichever comes first, subject to particularized discovery for good cause.

Burden of proof

Because there is no anti-SLAPP statute, there is no special burden-shifting test tailored to speech-based claims. A motion to dismiss is judged under Wisconsin's ordinary pleading-sufficiency standard, and a motion for summary judgment is judged under the ordinary genuine-issue-of-material-fact standard, the same rules that apply in any other civil case.

Attorney's fees

There is no SLAPP-specific fee-shifting rule. A defendant who wins an ordinary motion to dismiss or for summary judgment does not automatically recover attorney's fees for having to defend against a meritless speech-based claim. Wisconsin's general rule governing sanctions for improperly filed pleadings and motions, Wis. Stat. § 802.05, remains available on the same terms as in any other lawsuit, but it isn't tailored to SLAPP suits and requires its own separate showing.

Right to appeal

There is no special interlocutory appeal right tied to a ruling on a SLAPP-type motion. Ordinary Wisconsin rules on which orders are immediately appealable, and which must wait for a final judgment, apply instead.

Exemptions

Not applicable, there is no statute to carve exemptions from.

What trips people up

"Passed the Assembly" is not the same as "became law." News coverage in February 2026 reported the anti-SLAPP bill passing the Wisconsin Assembly, and it's easy to see that headline and assume Wisconsin now has a statute. It doesn't, the companion bill stalled in the Senate and both died when the chamber ran out of floor time in March 2026.

There's no fallback common-law petitioning immunity here. Some no-statute states still give defendants a narrow constitutional or common-law defense against retaliatory suits over government-directed speech. Wisconsin courts haven't recognized a comparable doctrine; the reported cases in this area are decided on ordinary defamation grounds (truth, opinion, actual malice), not any SLAPP-specific immunity.

A new attempt can't happen until January 2027 at the earliest. Wisconsin's legislature runs on a two-year cycle, and this bill died with its current biennium's floor calendar. Watch for a reintroduced bill when the next two-year session convenes, rather than expecting another vote before then.

Common questions

If I'm sued over something I posted online criticizing a local business, can I get the case thrown out quickly? Not through any SLAPP-specific procedure, Wisconsin doesn't have one. You'd need to win an ordinary motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the merits. The ordinary dismissal motion has § 802.06's general 180-day stay, but neither route carries SLAPP-specific fee shifting.

Is a Wisconsin anti-SLAPP law likely to pass soon? There's no way to know for certain, but the 2026 bill came unusually close: it passed the Assembly unanimously out of committee and on a voice vote on the floor. It simply ran out of Senate floor time before the session's calendar closed, so a similarly-drafted bill reintroduced in the next session (starting January 2027) would have a real head start.

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

Statutes and sources

• 2025 Wis. A.B. 701, proposed Wis. Stat. § 802.065(2) (never enacted) — "Except as otherwise provided in par. (c), this section applies to a cause of action asserted in a civil action against a person based on any of the following: 1. The person's communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding. 2. The person's communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding. 3. The person's exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of this state, on a matter of public concern. (c) This section does not apply to any of the following: 1. 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. 2. A cause of action asserted by a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity to enforce a law to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety. 3. A cause of action asserted against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the cause of action arises out of a communication related to the person's sale or lease of the goods or services." Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/proposaltext/2025/REG/AB701.pdf (accessed 2026-07-05). This bill died without a Senate vote and was never enacted.
• 2025 Wis. A.B. 701, proposed Wis. Stat. § 802.065(3), (9), (10) (never enacted) — "(3) SPECIAL MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF. Not later than 60 days after a party is served with a complaint, cross claim, counterclaim, 3rd-party complaint, or other pleading that asserts a cause of action to which this section applies, or at a later time on a showing of good cause, the party may file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the cause of action or part of the cause of action... (9) APPEAL. Notwithstanding s. 808.03 (1), a moving party may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying, in whole or in part, a motion under sub. (3). The appeal must be filed not later than 14 days after entry of the order. (10) COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, AND EXPENSES. Notwithstanding s. 814.04 (1), on a motion under sub. (3), the court shall award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses related to the motion as follows: (a) To the moving party if the moving party prevails on the motion. (b) 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://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/proposaltext/2025/REG/AB701.pdf (accessed 2026-07-05). This bill died without a Senate vote and was never enacted.