Written by Dr Mark Hanna, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Canterbury in Aotearoa New Zealand and Director of the SLAPPs Research Group
Academics, lawyers, journalists and policymakers gathered at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights in Oxford on 24 September 2026 to examine strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), and what law and practice can do about them.
The conference, ‘Abusive lawsuits and Public Participation: From SLAPPs to Solutions’, was hosted by the Bonavero Institute in collaboration with the SLAPPs Research Group and the Centre for Freedom of the Media, with the kind support of UNESCO. It was held under the Chatham House rule.
Participants explored the legislative reforms now emerging against abusive litigation, how courts are interpreting reform and learning from one another across borders, and the practical challenges faced by those who are targeted. Discussion ranged across the European Union, including Belgium, France and Luxembourg, as well as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Moldova, Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil.
The opening addresses set out the scale of the problem, including UNESCO’s global initiative on lawsuits against freedom of expression. They showed how the legal system itself can be turned into a tool of intimidation, and how SLAPPs are often used alongside other forms of pressure. Journalists who have faced sustained legal action have also faced threats to their safety, and in some cases lost their lives.
Legislative reform against abusive legislation
The first panel examined the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive. The Directive is limited to civil cases with a cross-border element, yet most SLAPPs are domestic and many are criminal. Some member states, such as Belgium, have gone further in implementing it. Panellists compared the European approach with the uneven, state-by-state protection in the United States, and questions from the floor turned to forum shopping and why full recovery of costs is essential.
A paper that followed argued that abusive proceedings against public participation should be read as an autonomous concept of EU law, defined by the harm they do to public debate. It tested that reading against the civil fine in France and the fine proposed in Luxembourg.
From Reform to Reality: Jurisprudence and Transnational Judicial Dialogue
The second panel looked at how anti-SLAPP laws are working in practice. In Canada, the laws have worked well for news outlets and political speech, but court backlogs delay applications meant to be heard within weeks. Moldova’s new legislation goes beyond the Directive as part of the EU accession process. In Indonesia, protection for environmental defenders has been limited by narrow framing and drafting, and by uneven implementation. Speakers also discussed the gaps federalism leaves in the United States, particularly where the power of the state stands behind a lawsuit. A recurring theme was that the legislation depends on judges who understand its purpose, and that judicial training is needed if it is to work.
Costs, funding and practice
A talk that followed considered the first case decided under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in England and Wales. The defendant succeeded on ordinary strike-out and summary judgment, and the court treated the anti-SLAPP provisions as a subsidiary basis. Discussion turned to the limits of the current provisions, including their complexity, the focus on “economic crime”, the subjective intention test, and the high bar of harm beyond that ordinarily encountered in properly conducted litigation.
The third panel focused on practice, with particular attention to the Global South. South Africa has no anti-SLAPP legislation, but its Constitutional Court has developed protection through the common law, drawing on developments elsewhere. Organisations that fund and support SLAPP defendants said that much of their support now goes to the Global South, where defendants have faced “swarm” SLAPPs, with many claims brought against the same person, alongside other forms of intimidation. They described the importance of emergency grants and strategic litigation in defence, and the dilemma of funding litigation designed to financially exhaust the defendant. Speakers also drew on a broader concept of SLAPPs than most legislation reflects, capturing the wider range of legal pressure used against people who speak out.
The closing keynote offered a provocation. Should anti-SLAPP laws be designed to protect public interest expression more openly? With institutional media weakened and traditional editorial controls largely gone, the cost of defending a claim now decides what is published. As one journalist put it, he would fight and win every case if each cost €5,000, but no one wants to pay £500,000. The keynote suggested that disputes over speech on matters of public interest, widely defined, might be moved to a specialised, lower-cost forum that still offers claimants a remedy.
Concluding thoughts
The day showed that anti-SLAPP legislation depends above all on the judges who apply it, on the costs of defending such claim and the organisational support for those who are targeted. The conversations started at the conference are continuing, and a Bonavero Report on the event will follow.