In 2025, Shareholder and Compliance Officer Eileen Bitterman spoke on two Continuing Legal Education (CLE) panels for ACA International (ACA) and National Creditors Bar Association (NCBA) to provide an in-depth look at Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and how they impact litigation, particularly in the debt collection industry. Now, she’s sharing her top takeaways and insights!
A SLAPP is not brought to seek legitimate redress for harm, but instead to silence or intimidate a party—often through costly, lengthy, and emotionally draining litigation. In the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) litigation world, a common example is a cross-complaint claiming that a valid debt collection lawsuit violates debt collection laws, with the aim of having the debt waived and possibly recovering additional funds.
The effects of being targeted in a SLAPP lawsuit can be significant. Even when the claims lack merit, defendants face the prospect of years of litigation, reputational harm, wasted resources, and substantial economic loss. Often, the goal of a SLAPP filer is not to win in court, but to pressure the plaintiff into abandoning their case or settling under unfavorable terms. SLAPP tactics are designed to “chill” a party’s ability to pursue litigation and can be used even once a case is already underway, driving up costs to deter future legal action. Importantly, anti-SLAPP laws protect not only against abusive lawsuits but also safeguard the constitutional right to petition the courts and exercise free speech.
Eileen and the panelists discussed different contexts in which SLAPP-like behavior can appear, including actions by pro se consumers—those representing themselves—who may not fully understand the litigation process. Courts often grant these litigants more leeway, which can complicate defense strategies. Repeat consumer attorneys also play a role, filing meritless or nuisance lawsuits to drive up the cost of litigation in the hopes of their clients’ avoiding payment of the underlying debts by creating complex litigation in the hopes that the lawsuit will end early or in a settlement. While some success has been achieved in recovering attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA for bad-faith suits, it is a rare occurrence. However, in Anti-SLAPP suits that are successful, attorney fees can be recovered, so defense counsel must weigh the cost and risk of pursuing such remedies.
Anti-SLAPP protections exist in thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia, with California having the most expansive statute. California’s law allows for early dismissal of meritless claims, stays discovery absent good cause, and mandates attorney’s fees for prevailing defendants. Other states, like Georgia and Massachusetts, follow similar frameworks but with variations, such as different prong analyses and procedural rules. Ohio enacted its first anti-SLAPP legislation in the statutory framework of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) in January 2025.
The interplay between state anti-SLAPP laws and federal court procedure remains complex. While some federal appellate circuits allow state anti-SLAPP statutes to apply in federal cases involving state claims, others reject this approach, citing conflicts with federal procedural rules. A federal anti-SLAPP bill, H.R. 8864, was introduced in 2022 to create a nationwide standard and reduce abusive litigation tactics, with bipartisan support. However, it did not advance through the legislative process. The bill was referred to the appropriate committees for review, but it did not receive a hearing, markup session or committee vote. Therefore, there is no federal law, but the industry still sees a need for one someday to address the inconsistency that has led to “forum shopping,” where parties file cases in jurisdictions with weaker protections.
To reduce the risk of being targeted by SLAPP lawsuits, Eileen emphasized the importance of proactive litigation auditing as part of a Compliance Management System (CMS). This includes tracking lawsuit trends, identifying high-risk jurisdictions, analyzing the tactics of repeat plaintiff attorneys, and aligning with defense counsel experienced in anti-SLAPP strategy. Reviewing outcomes and integrating lessons learned into operational policies can help ensure compliance with federal and state rules while deterring future claims.
Ultimately, Eileen’s message was clear: SLAPP lawsuits are a costly and manipulative abuse of the legal system, but with informed defense strategies, strong compliance programs, and an understanding of the evolving legal landscape, organizations can protect themselves from being silenced through litigation.
Our team is constantly monitoring this topic. If you have any questions or would like to learn more about Weltman’s collection solutions or compliance department, feel free to connect with Eileen at any time.
This blog is not a solicitation for business, and it is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters, create an attorney-client relationship or be legally binding in any way.
A SLAPP is not brought to seek legitimate redress for harm, but instead to silence or intimidate a party—often through costly, lengthy, and emotionally draining litigation. In the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) litigation world, a common example is a cross-complaint claiming that a valid debt collection lawsuit violates debt collection laws, with the aim of having the debt waived and possibly recovering additional funds.
The effects of being targeted in a SLAPP lawsuit can be significant. Even when the claims lack merit, defendants face the prospect of years of litigation, reputational harm, wasted resources, and substantial economic loss. Often, the goal of a SLAPP filer is not to win in court, but to pressure the plaintiff into abandoning their case or settling under unfavorable terms. SLAPP tactics are designed to “chill” a party’s ability to pursue litigation and can be used even once a case is already underway, driving up costs to deter future legal action. Importantly, anti-SLAPP laws protect not only against abusive lawsuits but also safeguard the constitutional right to petition the courts and exercise free speech.
Eileen and the panelists discussed different contexts in which SLAPP-like behavior can appear, including actions by pro se consumers—those representing themselves—who may not fully understand the litigation process. Courts often grant these litigants more leeway, which can complicate defense strategies. Repeat consumer attorneys also play a role, filing meritless or nuisance lawsuits to drive up the cost of litigation in the hopes of their clients’ avoiding payment of the underlying debts by creating complex litigation in the hopes that the lawsuit will end early or in a settlement. While some success has been achieved in recovering attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA for bad-faith suits, it is a rare occurrence. However, in Anti-SLAPP suits that are successful, attorney fees can be recovered, so defense counsel must weigh the cost and risk of pursuing such remedies.
Anti-SLAPP protections exist in thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia, with California having the most expansive statute. California’s law allows for early dismissal of meritless claims, stays discovery absent good cause, and mandates attorney’s fees for prevailing defendants. Other states, like Georgia and Massachusetts, follow similar frameworks but with variations, such as different prong analyses and procedural rules. Ohio enacted its first anti-SLAPP legislation in the statutory framework of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) in January 2025.
The interplay between state anti-SLAPP laws and federal court procedure remains complex. While some federal appellate circuits allow state anti-SLAPP statutes to apply in federal cases involving state claims, others reject this approach, citing conflicts with federal procedural rules. A federal anti-SLAPP bill, H.R. 8864, was introduced in 2022 to create a nationwide standard and reduce abusive litigation tactics, with bipartisan support. However, it did not advance through the legislative process. The bill was referred to the appropriate committees for review, but it did not receive a hearing, markup session or committee vote. Therefore, there is no federal law, but the industry still sees a need for one someday to address the inconsistency that has led to “forum shopping,” where parties file cases in jurisdictions with weaker protections.
To reduce the risk of being targeted by SLAPP lawsuits, Eileen emphasized the importance of proactive litigation auditing as part of a Compliance Management System (CMS). This includes tracking lawsuit trends, identifying high-risk jurisdictions, analyzing the tactics of repeat plaintiff attorneys, and aligning with defense counsel experienced in anti-SLAPP strategy. Reviewing outcomes and integrating lessons learned into operational policies can help ensure compliance with federal and state rules while deterring future claims.
Ultimately, Eileen’s message was clear: SLAPP lawsuits are a costly and manipulative abuse of the legal system, but with informed defense strategies, strong compliance programs, and an understanding of the evolving legal landscape, organizations can protect themselves from being silenced through litigation.
Our team is constantly monitoring this topic. If you have any questions or would like to learn more about Weltman’s collection solutions or compliance department, feel free to connect with Eileen at any time.
This blog is not a solicitation for business, and it is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters, create an attorney-client relationship or be legally binding in any way.
