How to Survive an Anti-SLAPP Motion in Oregon

What is an anti-SLAPP motion in Oregon? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150 that allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of a lawsuit they claim arises from protected speech or petitioning activity.

Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent lawsuits that are designed to chill participation in public affairs. They are not intended to protect false statements, private smear campaigns, or personal vendettas.

If you are reading this page, it is usually because someone has accused you of something serious and you are now being told that an “anti-SLAPP motion” may end your case before it begins. For many people, this is the first time they have encountered ORS 31.150, and the statute can appear overwhelming.

Anti-SLAPP litigation often arises in moments of real crisis. False accusations involving crime, abuse, professional misconduct, or safety concerns can trigger immediate consequences long before a court ever hears the case. Understanding how anti-SLAPP actually works in Oregon is often the difference between losing a case early and preserving the right to have it heard.

Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute exists within a constitutional framework. Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution provides strong protection for free expression, while Article I, Section 17 guarantees that the right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

Anti-SLAPP is a statutory screening mechanism designed to balance those constitutional commands. It allows courts to dispose of claims that improperly target protected speech, while preserving jury trials where a plaintiff presents substantial evidence of false factual statements and resulting harm.

Anti-SLAPP is not a substitute for the jury trial right and not a blanket immunity for speech. It is a procedural filter, and whether a case passes through that filter depends on how it is investigated and supported from the outset.

Q: Does an anti-SLAPP motion automatically end my case?

No.

An anti-SLAPP motion does not automatically dismiss a case. It triggers a two-step legal analysis. If the defendant fails at either step, the motion must be denied.

Many anti-SLAPP motions fail because defendants assume the statute provides broader protection than it actually does.

Q: What is the two-step anti-SLAPP analysis in Oregon?

Step One: Protected Activity

The defendant must first show that the plaintiff’s claim arises out of activity protected by ORS 31.150, such as:

• Statements made in a judicial or official proceeding
• Statements made in connection with an issue under review by a government body
• Statements made in a public forum about an issue of public interest

If the defendant cannot meet this burden, the motion fails.

Step Two: Plaintiff’s Burden (This Is Where Most Cases Are Won or Lost)

If the defendant meets the first step, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing by presenting substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case.

Importantly, this does not require proving the entire case at this stage.

For plaintiffs, the two-step analysis creates intense time pressure. Defamation claims must generally be filed within one year, and anti-SLAPP motions force early evidentiary showings before full discovery occurs.

This means investigation, witness identification, and declaration preparation must happen quickly. Plaintiffs cannot rely on later discovery to develop their case. Anti-SLAPP litigation is front-loaded, fast-moving, and unforgiving of delay.

Q: What does “substantial evidence” mean under Oregon anti-SLAPP law?

Under Oregon law, “substantial evidence” means enough evidence that a reasonable factfinder could rule in the plaintiff’s favor if the evidence were believed.

The court may not:

• Weigh evidence
• Decide credibility
• Choose which side’s evidence is stronger

This standard was clearly articulated by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Young v. Davis, a landmark anti-SLAPP decision.

Q: Can a judge decide who is telling the truth at the anti-SLAPP stage?

No.

Oregon courts have made clear that anti-SLAPP motions are not mini-trials. Judges are not allowed to decide who is more credible or which version of events is more convincing.

If the plaintiff presents substantial evidence supporting each element of the claim, the motion must be denied—even if the defendant disputes those facts.

Q: Are false statements protected by anti-SLAPP laws?

No.

Anti-SLAPP laws do not protect knowingly false statements, reckless disregard for the truth, or private defamatory conduct.

Statements made in private conversations, workplaces, community organizations, or informal settings are often not protected, especially when they are unrelated to public issues or official proceedings.

Q: Is calling someone a “predator” or accusing them of misconduct protected speech?

Not automatically.

Whether a statement is protected depends on:

• The context in which it was made
• Whether it was made in a protected proceeding or forum
• Whether it implies false statements of fact

In Oregon, accusations that imply criminal or sexual misconduct—especially in private or community settings—are often defamatory per se and not shielded by anti-SLAPP statutes.

Statements framed as opinions do not automatically qualify for anti-SLAPP protection. Oregon courts analyze whether the statement implies false underlying facts and whether a reasonable listener would understand it as a factual accusation.

Accusations of criminal conduct, sexual misconduct, abuse, or being unsafe—especially when made without disclosing any factual basis—often imply undisclosed facts. Those implied facts are what make a statement actionable and what remove it from constitutional protection.

This opinion-versus-fact analysis is frequently decisive at the anti-SLAPP stage.

Q: Can defamation claims survive an anti-SLAPP motion in Oregon?

Yes. Many do.

Defamation claims frequently survive anti-SLAPP motions when:

• The statements were made outside protected proceedings
• The statements involve private disputes, not public issues
• The plaintiff presents substantial evidence of falsity and publication

Anti-SLAPP is not a defamation immunity statute.

Q: What kinds of evidence can be used to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion?

At the anti-SLAPP stage, plaintiffs commonly rely on:

• Sworn declarations or affidavits
• Investigator declarations
• Documents showing publication of false statements
• Circumstantial evidence establishing context, motive, and pattern

Because discovery is often stayed, plaintiffs must rely heavily on early evidence. This front-loaded requirement makes anti-SLAPP litigation expensive and resource-intensive at the outset.

These cases reward preparation and penalize improvisation. Evidence must be preserved immediately, and strategy must be set before the first motion is filed.

Discovery is often stayed, which is why early case preparation matters.

Q: Can I add claims other than defamation to survive anti-SLAPP?

Yes.

In appropriate cases, plaintiffs may also assert claims such as:

• Intentional interference with economic or professional relations
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Defamation often serves as the “improper means” supporting these additional claims.

Q: Does anti-SLAPP apply to private disputes?

Not usually.

Oregon courts have consistently held that purely private disputes—including workplace conflicts, personal vendettas, and community disputes—do not implicate the public interest simply because speech is involved.

Anti-SLAPP protection is narrow and context-specific.

Q: What is the most common mistake plaintiffs make in anti-SLAPP cases?

The most common mistakes are:

• Treating anti-SLAPP like an ordinary motion to dismiss
• Failing to submit sworn evidence
• Over-pleading legal argument instead of facts
• Not anticipating the motion from the outset

Anti-SLAPP cases require a different strategy than ordinary civil litigation.

Q: Do I need a lawyer experienced with anti-SLAPP motions?

Yes.

Anti-SLAPP litigation is procedural and unforgiving. Missed deadlines, insufficient declarations, or improper framing can end a case before it begins.

An attorney who understands both defamation law and ORS 31.150 is critical to surviving an anti-SLAPP motion.

Q: How does Young v. Davis affect anti-SLAPP cases today?

Young v. Davis clarified that Oregon courts must:

• Apply the “substantial evidence” standard correctly
• Avoid weighing evidence or deciding credibility
• Deny anti-SLAPP motions when plaintiffs meet their burden

It remains one of the most important Oregon anti-SLAPP cases for plaintiffs.

Q: Talk to a Lawyer About Anti-SLAPP in Oregon

If your case involves false statements, reputational harm, or a threatened anti-SLAPP motion, early legal advice matters.

Surviving an anti-SLAPP motion often determines whether a case moves forward at all.

Anti-SLAPP litigation in Oregon is not theoretical. It determines whether a defamation or reputation case survives long enough to reach discovery or a jury.

If you are facing false accusations and an anti-SLAPP motion is threatened or filed, early legal strategy matters. Timing, evidence, and framing often decide the case before the merits are ever tried.

Related Pages

• Oregon Anti-SLAPP Practice
• Defamation and Reputation Litigation
• Young v. Davis Case Study
• Intentional Interference Claims