Earlier this month, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted the analysis from Geiser v. Kuhns—a case my office litigated through the California Supreme Court—in interpreting Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to provide a mechanism for the early dismissal of lawsuits brought to punish people for their speech on issues of public interest—such as when an oil company sues environmental activists over public criticism. These lawsuits are often intended to intimidate speakers with fewer resources by forcing them to endure an expensive and time-consuming legal process.
Because anti-SLAPP statutes typically apply only to speech made in connection with an issue of public interest, the scope of their protection often turns on how narrowly or broadly courts interpret that phrase.
In Geiser v. Kuhns, the California Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of what constitutes speech on a matter of public interest, thereby extending robust anti-SLAPP protection. The court held that speech may address an issue of public interest even when it also arises from a private dispute. In Geiser, a family was sued for protesting the CEO of a company that had foreclosed on their home. Although the protest stemmed from their personal experience, it also implicated the broader public issue of the foreclosure crisis. This distinction matters because many—if not most—people speak out on public issues precisely because those issues affect them personally.
The Geiser court explained that, to invoke anti-SLAPP protection, a speaker need only show that the speech could reasonably be understood as being made in connection with an issue of public interest—a deliberately low threshold.
By setting that low bar, Geiser made it easier for defendants sued over their speech to obtain relief under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted that same standard for Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. In Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care, the court adopted Geiser and held that anti-SLAPP protections apply even when speech also concerns a private dispute, so long as it could reasonably be understood as being made in connection with an issue of public interest.
The Lind-Barnett decision should ensure broad protection for speakers and advocates facing litigation designed to punish them for speaking out. It is a welcome development.