Ohio's New Anti-SLAPP Law and What It Means for Defamation Claims Based on False Crime Reports

What Is a “SLAPP”?

“SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” SLAPPs are typically regarded as lawsuits “used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend […] baseless suits.”

The Change in the Law:

Ohio enacted its anti-SLAPP statute as Senate Bill 237 in the 135th General Assembly. It was sponsored by Sens. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, and Nathan Manning, R-North Ridgeville, and introduced on March 26, 2024.The Senate passed it unanimously on June 12, 2024, and the House followed on December 11, 2024, by an 84-0 vote. Governor Mike DeWine signed it on January 8, 2025, and it took effect on April 9, 2025, as R.C. Chapter 2747, the “Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.” It followed earlier anti-SLAPP bills in 2017 and 2019 that had stalled. This time it drew unusually broad support: the ACLU of Ohio, news organizations, domestic violence groups, and the state bar all backed it.

How Anti-SLAPP Laws Work

An anti-SLAPP statute gives defendants a fast way to end a lawsuit that targets their speech on public issues. SLAPPs are suits, often for defamation or invasion of privacy, whose real goal is to silence critics through long and expensive litigation rather than to win. Typical examples are a business suing activists who protested its practices, or an official suing a journalist over a critical story. Anti-SLAPP laws do not take away the right to sue; they force the plaintiff to justify the claim early so meritless cases can be dismissed before they become costly.

What the Act Covers

Ohio’s Act covers claims "based on" three kinds of activity: (1) a communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; (2) a communication on an issue under consideration in such a proceeding; and (3) the exercise of speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on a matter of public concern. R.C. 2747.01(B). Courts must construe the Act broadly. R.C. 2747.06(B).

Exceptions. Among other exceptions, the Act does not reach suits against government units or employees acting officially, government public-safety enforcement actions, claims against businesses arising from communications about their goods or services, or bodily-injury, wrongful-death, and survivorship claims. R.C. 2747.01(C).

Procedure

A defendant may file a motion for expedited relief within 60 days after service. R.C. 2747.02. Filing the motion stays all proceedings, including discovery, although the court may permit limited discovery of specific information needed to meet a statutory burden. R.C. 2747.03. The court must hold a hearing within 60 days and rule within 60 days after the hearing. R.C. 2747.04(A), (D).

How Courts Decide the Motion

The court must dismiss with prejudice if the defendant shows the claim falls within scope, the plaintiff fails to show an exception, and either the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case on each element, or the defendant shows a failure to state a claim or no genuine issue of material fact. R.C. 2747.04(C). The court considers the pleadings and any evidence admissible under Civ.R. 56. R.C. 2747.04(B).

Fees, Costs, and Appeals

A defendant who wins the motion must be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses. R.C. 2747.05(A). A defendant who loses pays the plaintiff's fees only if the court finds the motion was frivolous. R.C. 2747.05(B). A denial is immediately appealable within 30 days, and all proceedings are stayed during the appeal. R.C. 2747.05(C), 2747.03(B). The General Assembly declared that it intended to confer immunity from suit, not merely from liability, and that the Act does not create a new cause of action. R.C. 2747.01(D), (E).

What This Means for Defamation Claims Based on False Crime Reports

Ohio's anti-SLAPP statute does not change what a person falsely accused of a crime must ultimately prove, but it changes when and at what risk they must prove it. Since April 9, 2025, a defendant sued for defamation over a report to police, a prosecutor, or the public can force the plaintiff to produce evidence on every element, including actual malice, within months of filing, before ordinary discovery, and with the plaintiff paying the defendant's attorney's fees if the claim fails.

Nearly every such claim is within scope. Under Ohio Supreme Court precedent, a report to a prosecutor is part of a judicial proceeding and thus likely fits R.C. 2747.01(B)(1). A report to police plausibly fits (B)(1) or (B)(2) as a communication in or about an executive investigation, and it could independently fit (B)(3) as petitioning the government about crime, a matter of public concern. Accusations repeated online may also fit (B)(3): the Fifth District recently accepted that a post about a sex-offender registrant's workplace was speech on a matter of public concern. Given the statute's broad-construction mandate, defendants will usually clear this first step.

Actual malice must be shown early, without discovery. To survive a motion for expedited relief, the plaintiff must present prima facie evidence on every element, including publication without privilege. Where a qualified privilege attaches, the plaintiff must present competent evidence of knowing or reckless falsity before discovery opens. Watson softens this burden: the prima facie threshold is low, courts draw reasonable inferences for the plaintiff and may not weigh evidence, and circumstantial proof of fault can suffice. Still, the evidence of the reporter's knowledge, texts, and motives sits largely with the defendant, and limited discovery under R.C. 2747.03(C) requires a showing of specific need.

Privilege defenses become dismissal tools. Even when the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the defendant may win by showing no genuine issue of material fact. R.C. 2747.04(C)(3)(b). For reports to prosecutors, the absolute privilege recognized in DiCorpo may end the case at this stage, now with mandatory fees assessed against the plaintiff.

The cost of losing shifts sharply. Fee-shifting is mandatory for a winning defendant, including one with pro bono or contingent-fee representation, while a plaintiff recovers fees only if the motion was frivolous. R.C. 2747.05(A)-(B). A plaintiff arrested on a false report who cannot prove the reporter's state of mind risks paying the reporter's lawyers.

Delay favors defendants. A denied motion is immediately appealable, and the case is frozen during the appeal. Even plaintiffs with meritorious claims may wait a year or more before discovery begins. Courts must, however, actually hold the required hearing; two appellate courts have reversed rulings made without one. Walker v. Arrington, 2026-Ohio-3881; Lawrence v. Gilby's Pizza Craven, 2026-Ohio-1797.

Open Questions

Because no reported Ohio decision has yet applied Chapter 2747 to a report made to law enforcement, at least three questions remain unsettled:

1. Whether a crime report, made through a 911 call or a police interview, is itself a communication in a “governmental proceeding” under (B)(1), or must instead qualify as speech on a matter of “public concern” under (B)(3).
2. Whether a retailer reporting a suspected shoplifter can be denied the Act’s protection under the goods-or-services exception in R.C. 2747.01(C).
3. Whether courts will treat the prima facie burden on actual malice leniently, as Watson’s approach to fault suggests, given that the plaintiff will not yet have access to discovery.

The Bottom Line

Ohio’s Act fits comfortably with the Ohio Supreme Court’s policy that good-faith reporters should not fear civil liability. But its cost could fall on the genuinely wronged. A person arrested on a fabricated accusation can still win, but likely only by arriving at court with evidence of the reporter's knowledge already in hand: the police report and bodycam footage, the disposition of the charges, recantations, messages showing motive, and witness testimony. Plaintiffs' counsel should build that record before filing.

This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have been falsely accused of a crime or sued over a report you made, contact Friedman Nemecek Long & Grant to discuss your specific situation.