Minnesota Anti-SLAPP Law: Dismissing a Speech Lawsuit

What Does Minnesota’s Anti-SLAPP Law Do?

Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP law gives a person sued over covered speech a fast way to end the claim. A special motion stays all other proceedings between the moving party and responding party, tests the claim early on a summary judgment record, and obligates the court to award fees to a moving party who wins.

The Court of Appeals calls the act “a uniform anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute” in Cook v. Trimble, 22 N.W.3d 196 (Minn. App. 2025). Three provisions carry the procedure:

1. The motion. Under Minn. Stat. § 554.09, a party served with a covered claim may file “a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the cause of action or part of the cause of action.”
2. The stay. Under Minn. Stat. § 554.10(a)(1), filing the motion stays “all other proceedings between the moving party and responding party, including discovery and a pending hearing or motion.”
3. The fees. Under Minn. Stat. § 554.16, the court “shall award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses related to the motion” to a moving party who prevails.

The motion can target one claim, or part of one.

Which Lawsuits Does the Act Cover, and Which Does It Exclude?

The act covers a claim based on a person’s communication in a governmental proceeding, communication on an issue under consideration or review in a governmental proceeding, or speech on a matter of public concern. It then removes twelve kinds of claims, and the plaintiff carries the burden of proving that one of those exclusions applies.

Under Minn. Stat. § 554.08(b), the act applies to “a cause of action asserted in a civil action against a person based on the person’s” activity in one of three categories:

• “communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding”;
• “communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding”; or
• “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 United States Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution on a matter of public concern.”

A business can use the act. Paragraph (a)(3) defines “person” to include a “business or nonprofit entity.” And Minn. Stat. § 554.17 says the act “must be broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association.”

Paragraph (c) then lists claims the act does not reach. The ones a business owner meets in practice include:

• a claim “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” (clause (3));
• real property claims, including quiet title and “related claims relating to real property” (clause (5));
• bodily injury and wrongful death claims, “unless the claims involve damage to reputation” (clause (6));
• a claim “based on a common law fraud claim” (clause (8));
• the claims listed in clause (10), those “brought under chapters 175, 177, 178, 179, and 179A; negligent supervision, retention, or infliction of emotional distress unless the claims involve damage to reputation; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; whistleblowing; or enforcement of employee rights under civil service, collective bargaining, or handbooks and policies”;
• consumer protection claims under “chapter 325F or 325G” (clause (11)); and
• a claim “for any claim brought under federal law” (clause (12)).

Paragraph (d) pulls clauses (3), (8), and (11) back in for two kinds of claims. One arises from newsgathering or a creative work. The other relates to “consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses.” Under Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a)(2), the plaintiff must establish an exclusion; in Anderson v. Anderson, No. A25-1075 (Minn. App. Apr. 27, 2026), the court said that once the moving party shows the act applies, “the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party” to establish an exception. This page covers the motion in Minnesota state court; whether a federal court will hear it on a Minnesota-law claim is a federal-procedure question outside this page.

When Is Speech on a Matter of Public Concern?

A Minnesota court decides public concern case by case, weighing the content, form, and context of the speech. A public online post helps, but a review that recounts a personal dispute with one business has fallen outside the act. A communication in a governmental proceeding, or on an issue under consideration or review in one, needs no public-concern showing.

The test comes from J&D Dental v. Hou, 26 N.W.3d 491 (Minn. App. 2025): public concern is decided “on a case-by-case basis given the totality of circumstances, taking into consideration the content, form, and context of the speech, as well as any other pertinent factors.” There, a patient’s Google reviews of a dental practice were posted in a public forum, which favored coverage, but their “overall thrust and dominant theme” was a personal grievance, so the act did not apply. The court said it expressed “no opinion on the merits of J&D Dental’s defamation claims.”

Three later decisions fill in the picture:

1. Business reviews still need public concern. In Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC, 31 N.W.3d 218 (Minn. App. 2025), the court held that a reviewer must establish public concern under paragraph (b)(3) “regardless of whether” the suit relates to reviews or ratings of businesses under paragraph (d)(2). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on March 25, 2026.
2. A licensing-board report that starts an investigation needs no public-concern showing. Anderson held that a report to a state licensing board that starts an investigation is a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” under paragraph (b)(1).
3. Community safety posts can qualify. In N A Brothers LLC v. Werts, No. A25-0930 (Minn. App. Mar. 9, 2026), a nonprecedential decision with a partial dissent, the court held that Facebook-group posts about child maltreatment at a child-care center were covered. It said the trial court “erred as a matter of law by construing speech on matters of public concern to include only speech intending to influence political or social change.”

If a review of your business is the problem, my page on the options when a review is false covers platform removal and the demand letter before any lawsuit.

How Does the Special Motion Work, Step by Step?

The motion has a filing window measured from service of the pleading, it stays all other proceedings between the moving and responding parties once filed, and it allows limited discovery only on a showing of need. Filing it does not waive any other defense, and the deadlines to answer a complaint or crossclaim, or reply to a counterclaim, come from Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.01.

1. Calendar the filing window. Minn. Stat. § 554.09 allows the motion “[n]ot later than 60 days after a party is served with a complaint, crossclaim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or other pleading that asserts a cause of action to which sections 554.07 to 554.19 apply, or at a later time on a showing of good cause.” Because a counterclaim and a third-party claim are listed, a plaintiff hit with a counterclaim can use the motion too. I suggest reading the current text of § 554.09 when you are served, because the window runs from service.
2. Keep the answer deadline. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.01 says a defendant “shall serve an answer within 21 days after service of the summons upon that defendant unless the court directs otherwise pursuant to Rule 4.043.” The same rule provides that “[a] party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 21 days after the service upon that party.” A plaintiff “shall serve a reply to a counterclaim in the answer within 21 days after service of the answer or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within 21 days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise directs” under the same rule. The act’s stay arises “on the filing of a motion under section 554.09.” I suggest reading the current text of Rule 12.01 and serving each answer or reply before it is due, because the deadlines run from different events. A defendant’s deadline runs from service of the summons, a crossclaim answer’s deadline runs from service of the crossclaim, and a plaintiff’s reply deadline runs from service of the answer.
3. The stay takes effect. Under § 554.10(b), the stay lasts until the court rules and the moving party’s time to appeal expires. On the moving party’s request, the court may also stay a hearing involving another party if it would adjudicate, or discovery by another party if it would relate to, “an issue material to the motion under section 554.09.” The stay does not block a fee motion, a voluntary dismissal, a motion to sever, or, for good cause, “a motion unrelated to the motion under section 554.09.”
4. Discovery only on a showing. Under § 554.10(d), the court “may allow limited discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy a burden under section 554.13, paragraph (a), and the information is not reasonably available unless discovery is allowed.”
5. Other defenses survive. Minn. Stat. § 554.20 provides that the motion “is not meant to waive a defense or preclude the filing of another pleading or motion regarding the cause of action.”

How Does the Court Decide the Motion?

The court decides on a summary judgment record. It dismisses the claim with prejudice if the defendant shows the act applies, the plaintiff fails to show an exclusion, and either the plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case on every element or the claim fails as a matter of law.

Under Minn. Stat. § 554.12, “the court shall consider the pleadings, the motion, any reply or response to the motion, and any evidence that could be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 56.03.” Minn. Stat. § 554.13(a) then requires dismissal if:

1. “the moving party establishes under section 554.08, paragraph (b), that sections 554.07 to 554.19 apply”;
2. “the responding party fails to establish under section 554.08, paragraph (c), that sections 554.07 to 554.19 do not apply”; and
3. either “the responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action,” or the moving party shows that the plaintiff “failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted” or that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

The third route matches the ordinary rule in Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01, under which the court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The first route puts the burden on the plaintiff. In Anderson, a plaintiff’s allegation that the statements harmed her reputation was “conclusory,” and “[t]his conclusory statement, alone, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.” The court added that she “had the ability to request more time to pursue discovery, but nothing in the record suggests that she exercised this ability.”

Cook holds that appellate review is de novo, “[b]ecause UPEPA provides an accelerated procedure for obtaining rulings under standards articulated in Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) and 56.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02, clause (e), is the defense of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” It also shows the merits doing the work. The court reversed the denial of the motion on defamation claims over a court filing (privileged) and over statements to the media about a public figure (evidence insufficient to prove actual malice), and affirmed the denial on an invasion-of-privacy claim. The elements a plaintiff must support are those of Minnesota defamation law, including the damages rules for defamation per se.

How Does Fee Shifting Work Under the Act?

A moving party who wins the motion gets mandatory fees for it; a plaintiff who defeats it gets fees only if the motion was frivolous or filed solely to delay. A plaintiff cannot escape the exposure by dismissing the claim after the motion is filed.

Minn. Stat. § 554.16 says the court “shall award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses related to the motion” in two situations:

• “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.”

Both awards are limited to fees “related to the motion.” Three more rules close the exits. Under § 554.13(b), a voluntary dismissal without prejudice “does not affect a moving party’s right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, attorney fees, and expenses.” Under § 554.13(c), a voluntary dismissal with prejudice “establishes for the purpose of section 554.16 that the moving party prevailed on the motion.” And under § 554.10(e), the fee motion “is not subject to a stay.”

Winning on other grounds does not earn the fee award. In Paragon, the trial court denied the special motion but “still dismissed Paragon’s defamation claim, separately determining that Paragon had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that no fact issue precluded judgment of dismissal as a matter of law.” Because the motion was denied, the court “did not award costs, attorney fees, and expenses” to the reviewers.

What Happens on Appeal?

Under § 554.15, a moving party may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying the motion, in whole or in part, and that appeal must be filed quickly. The case stays paused through the appeal. The Minnesota Supreme Court has granted review of two published Court of Appeals decisions under the act.

Minn. Stat. § 554.15 provides: “A moving party may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying, in whole or in part, a motion under section 554.09. The appeal must be filed not later than 30 days after entry of the order.” I suggest confirming the current text and the entry date of the order the day it arrives, because the deadline runs from entry. A plaintiff who loses the motion has no appeal of right under this section. That plaintiff’s review runs through Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03, which allows an appeal to the Court of Appeals “from a final judgment, or from a partial judgment entered pursuant to” Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, as in Anderson, where the “[a]ppellant challenges a district court order granting respondents’ special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA.”

Under § 554.10(c), when a party appeals a ruling on the motion, “all proceedings between all parties in the action are stayed,” and “[t]he stay remains in effect until the conclusion of the appeal.” That stay reaches parties who never joined the motion.

The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review in Cook on August 12, 2025, and in Paragon on March 25, 2026. My research did not identify a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in either case as of October 22, 2026. I suggest checking both before relying on them, because a decision in Paragon would control how the act treats business reviews.

Why Might a Defendant Decide Not to File the Motion?

The stay pauses everything between the two parties, including any claims the moving party has against the plaintiff. A defendant who wants its own case to move, or who faces a weak coverage argument and a possible fee award under the frivolous-motion rule, may be better served by ordinary motions.

The stay in § 554.10(a)(1) covers “all other proceedings between the moving party and responding party.” When a plaintiff is answering counterclaims, filing the motion against those counterclaims pauses the plaintiff’s own lawsuit too. When the moving party has claims of its own against the plaintiff, the stay delays those claims too, and a client who values keeping its own case on schedule may reasonably decide not to file. When I advise a party in that position, I weigh what the stay would do to its own claims against the value of an early ruling.

Two other factors belong in the decision. A motion found “frivolous or filed solely with intent to delay the proceeding” shifts the plaintiff’s motion fees to the mover under § 554.16(2). And when coverage is doubtful, ordinary tools may fit better; my page on other tools against a frivolous lawsuit covers Rule 11 sanctions and Rule 68 offers.

What Should a Business Weigh Before Suing Someone Over Speech?

A business that sues over speech the act covers risks paying the speaker’s fees for the motion if the claim lacks evidence on any element or fails as a matter of law. That exposure survives a voluntary dismissal, so the time to assess it is before filing.

I suggest screening each statement separately, because the court may dismiss “a cause of action, or part of a cause of action,” so the motion can be aimed at only the statements the act covers. In one pre-suit analysis I prepared on a possible defamation claim, only one statement, about the other person’s departure from an organization’s board, raised a realistic public-concern argument.

Three questions frame the screening:

1. Is the statement covered? Was it a communication in a governmental proceeding, or on an issue under consideration or review in one, or is its dominant theme a matter of public concern under J&D Dental?
2. Is there an exclusion? The business carries the burden to prove one under § 554.08(c).
3. Can the business prove every element now, and does the claim hold up as a matter of law? Under § 554.13(a)(3), the business must establish “a prima facie case as to each essential element” on the motion record, and the speaker can still win by establishing that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

A demand letter before suit deserves the same care. In J&D Dental, after the practice’s attorney sent a demand letter, the patient “posted seven additional and substantially similar Google reviews” saying the practice had threatened legal action. My page on how a demand letter can backfire covers that risk.

What Happened to Minnesota’s Old Anti-SLAPP Law?

The 2024 Legislature repealed Minnesota’s earlier anti-SLAPP statute, whose dismissal procedure the Minnesota Supreme Court had held unconstitutional as applied to tort claims. Under § 554.19, sections 554.07 to 554.19 “do not affect a cause of action asserted before May 25, 2024, in a civil action or a motion under Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 554.01 to 554.06, regarding the cause of action.”

2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 18, section 16, repealed sections 554.01, 554.02, 554.03, 554.04, 554.045, 554.05, and 554.06. Section 17 made the article “effective the day following final enactment,” applying it “to a civil action pending on or commenced on or after that date”; the governor signed the bill on May 24, 2024. Minn. Stat. § 554.19 is the provision that addresses “a cause of action asserted before May 25, 2024, in a civil action or a motion under Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 554.01 to 554.06, regarding the cause of action.”

The old statute required the responding party to prove to the judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that the moving party’s speech or conduct was not immune. In Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the old statute’s dismissal procedure “is unconstitutional as applied to claims at law alleging torts,” explaining that “[t]he Legislature can immunize a category of people from lawsuits, but it cannot interpose the district court as the fact-finder in actions at law.” The Court of Appeals has distinguished the current act. Anderson held the current act “constitutional as applied by the district court here,” because “[u]nlike Minnesota’s previous anti-SLAPP statute, UPEPA does not require district courts to make factual findings.”

Next Steps After Being Sued Over Speech

If you have been served with a claim over something you said, posted, or reported, these steps follow from the rules above:

1. Write down the date and manner of service, because both the answer deadline and the special-motion window run from service.
2. Identify which § 554.08(b) category the speech falls in, and whether a § 554.08(c) exclusion could apply.
3. Decide whether the stay helps you or hurts you, especially if you have claims of your own against the plaintiff.
4. Gather the evidence that answers each element of the claim, because the court rules on a summary judgment record.
5. If you are the business considering a lawsuit, screen each statement for coverage and fee exposure before you file.

For a broader look at how a defamation lawsuit moves through court, that page walks through the stages. These motions are part of my business litigation practice. If you have received a lawsuit over speech or are weighing one, email me at [email protected] with a brief description, and I can tell you whether the act likely applies and what the motion would put at stake for you. I suggest holding back the complaint and any other confidential documents until I have run a conflict check, so a first email needs only the description and the names of the parties.