•  
  •  
 

Buffalo Law Review

First Page

1051

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Conventional analysis of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) often focuses on the promise of recent procedural reforms, including recent U.S. state-level reforms, the 2024 E.U. Anti-SLAPP Directive, the U.K. government’s 2025 SLAPP Bill, and related measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. This Article argues that these legislative responses, introduced amid growing international concern, still leave structural vulnerabilities, have limited focus, and do not address the deep-seated inadequacies of substantive law that allow powerful actors to chill public-interest speech through abusive lawfare.

Adopting an interdisciplinary “new legal realist” approach, this Article decodes the anatomy of this modern “lawfare,” exposing the troubling gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in action.” Through an analysis of landmark cases, from the historic McLibel saga to the recent Banks v. Cadwalladr litigation, this Article demonstrates the paradoxical outcome of a legal system where truth-tellers vindicated on public interest grounds can still face financial ruin.

The analysis scrutinizes the fragmented U.S. legal landscape by dissecting the three interconnected dimensions along which SLAPPs are fought: the application of federal doctrines to cases brought under federal law; the enforcement of state-specific anti-SLAPP statutes within state courts; and the critical friction between these two systems under the Erie doctrine when federal judges adjudicate state-law claims. The analysis then draws comparative lessons from the E.U.’s Anti-SLAPP Directive and the U.K.’s recent reforms and proposed bills. It also emphasizes how the role of professional “enablers” who design and execute these abusive claims is an often-neglected driver of this harmful phenomenon. This transnational comparison yields universally applicable lessons on what works and, more importantly, what fails when democratic societies confront the weaponization of their legal systems.

Finally, this Article proposes a usable design for reform that looks beyond mere procedural compliance. It offers a conceptual framework that can be embraced as a way to reinforce the justice system so that the law serves as a shield for free expression, not a sword for the powerful. Through this realistic path, democracies can ensure the ancient ideal of civic courage is not just protected, but celebrated.

Download

Share

COinS