On August 28, Missouri repealed its old and unusually narrow anti-SLAPP statute and replaced it with the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. The new Section 537.529 gives anyone sued over speech on a matter of public concern a fast, front-loaded way out, and it puts the other side’s attorney fees on the table.
Timing matters. Section 537.529 applies to any civil action filed, or any cause of action asserted in a civil action, on or after August 28, 2026. The special motion to dismiss must ordinarily be filed within sixty days after a party is served with the complaint. A defendant who waits for the usual answer-and-discovery rhythm can lose the benefit of the statute entirely.
Missouri’s 2026 legislative session produced a long list of laws that took effect on the state’s standard August 28 date. One of them has drawn far less attention than it deserves: the state now has a functioning anti-SLAPP law.
“SLAPP” stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. The term describes a lawsuit filed not to win, but to impose cost and delay on someone who spoke publicly. A developer sues the neighbor who organized opposition to a rezoning. A contractor sues the homeowner who left a one-star review. A local official sues the resident who criticized him at a council meeting. The claim may be weak. Two years of discovery and a five-figure legal bill are the point.
What Missouri had before, and why it was considered thin
Until last Friday, Missouri’s anti-SLAPP protection lived in Section 537.528. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit legal organization that advocates for stronger press and speech protections, that statute reached only speech made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a governmental tribunal or decision-making body. Speech that fell outside that narrow frame — an online review, a social media post, a letter to a newspaper, a conversation with a reporter — received no special procedural protection at all.
The Missouri Revisor of Statutes now shows Section 537.528 marked simply as repealed, effective August 28, 2026, by Senate Bills 835 and 1111 merged with Senate Bill 1067. In its place sits Section 537.529.
What Section 537.529 actually does
The new section is Missouri’s enactment of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, a model statute drafted by the Uniform Law Commission and adopted in more than a dozen states over the past several years. It covers civil actions based on a person’s communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative or other governmental proceeding, on an issue under consideration by a governmental body, or in the exercise of the rights of speech, press, assembly, petition and association on a matter of public concern.
The machinery, as codified at Section 537.529 RSMo, runs on short clocks:
Sixty days to move. The special motion to dismiss is due no later than sixty days after service of the complaint, or later if the court finds good cause.
Everything stops. Filing the motion stays the other proceedings between the moving party and the responding party, discovery included, until the motion and any appeal are resolved. A court may allow limited discovery where it is necessary to decide the motion.
Sixty days to a hearing. The court must hear the motion no later than sixty days after it is filed, with an allowance for a discovery order.
Sixty days to a ruling. The court must rule within sixty days of the hearing.
Dismissal is with prejudice. If the moving party shows the statute applies and the responding party cannot establish a prima facie case for each essential element or otherwise fails to state a viable claim, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
An immediate appeal. A moving party whose motion is denied may appeal within twenty-one days as a matter of right.
Fees shift. The court must award costs, reasonable attorney fees and reasonable litigation expenses related to the motion to the moving party if that party prevails, and to the responding party only if that party prevails and the court finds the motion was frivolous or filed solely to delay the proceeding.
The last two items are the ones that change litigation behavior. Under the old rules, a defendant sued over a Facebook post had two realistic choices: pay a lawyer to grind through discovery, or pay something to make it go away. The stay, the fee award and the immediate right of appeal together make the second choice less attractive to the party filing the suit.
Section 537.529 directs that it “shall be broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association.”
Three exceptions worth knowing
The statute does not reach everything. By its own terms it does not apply to a cause of action asserted in three situations, and the third is the one business owners should read twice.
1. Against a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting, or purporting to act, in an official capacity.
2. By a governmental unit or its employee or agent acting in an official capacity to enforce a law protecting against an imminent threat to public health or safety.
3. Against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, where the cause of action arises out of a communication related to that person’s sale or lease of the goods or services.
The third exception is the commercial-speech carve-out that appears in the uniform act. A company cannot use Section 537.529 to shortcut a false-advertising or misrepresentation claim about its own products. The protection is aimed at public participation, not at marketing copy.
How this lands in the St. Louis region
Most Missourians will never file a special motion to dismiss. The practical effect of the statute shows up earlier, in the decisions people make about whether to speak and whether to sue.
Consider the situations that come through a general practice regularly. A homeowner in Wildwood posts a detailed account of a remodeling job that went badly and receives a demand letter threatening a defamation suit. A group of residents organizes against a warehouse project and the applicant sues the two most visible organizers. A tenant complains to a municipal housing office and the landlord counters with a suit. Each of those disputes now carries a procedural question it did not carry a week ago, and the answer to that question may arrive within roughly four months of service rather than after two years of discovery.
For a business considering litigation, the calculus has changed in the other direction. A claim brought against a critic now needs to be strong enough to establish a prima facie case for every essential element on an accelerated schedule, with a fee award waiting if it is not. That is a reason to have the merits assessed before a petition is filed rather than after. Our business litigation and business law pages describe how we approach that assessment.
What the law does not do
Section 537.529 is a procedural statute. It does not create a right to defame anyone, and it does not change the substantive law of defamation, invasion of privacy or tortious interference in Missouri. A plaintiff who can establish a prima facie case for each essential element of a genuine claim survives the motion and proceeds to the ordinary course of the case.
It also cuts both ways. A defendant who files a special motion that the court finds frivolous, or filed solely to delay, can be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs and fees related to the motion. The statute rewards a well-founded motion filed promptly. It penalizes one used as a stalling device.
Finally, the sixty-day clock is unforgiving. Anyone served with a lawsuit that arises out of something they said, wrote, posted or testified to should treat the service date as the start of a short window rather than a distant deadline. Questions about online speech, platform liability and the reach of the statute to internet publication also sit close to our technology and AI law and civil rights practices, and disputes over rezoning, easements and neighborhood objections often begin as real estate matters before they become speech matters.
How it passed
The bill was carried by Senator Mike Henderson of Desloge. Reporting from KBIA, the University of Missouri’s public radio station, records the Senate passing the measure 31 to 0 in April and the House clearing it 135 to 4 on the final day of session. Support for the uniform act has come from press organizations, free-speech groups and business associations in various states. The firm takes no position on the politics of the measure; the analysis above is about text and procedure.
Helpful resources
The coverage below is drawn from several vantage points and labeled by ownership, so you can weigh each account and reach your own conclusion.
Section 537.529 RSMo, Uniform Public Expression Protection Act · Missouri Revisor of Statutes, the state government office that publishes the official codified statutes. Primary source.
Section 537.528 RSMo, repeal note · Missouri Revisor of Statutes, state government. Primary source.
Senate Bill 1067, truly agreed and finally passed text (PDF) · Missouri Senate, state government. Primary source.
SB 1067 bill information and action history · Missouri Senate, state government. Primary source.
Missouri bill aims to make it easier to dismiss lawsuits that punish public criticism · KBIA, a public radio station licensed to the University of Missouri and an NPR member. Non-commercial, university-licensed.
Missouri anti-SLAPP guide · Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a United States nonprofit that provides legal support to journalists and openly advocates for stronger anti-SLAPP laws. Useful, and not neutral on the subject.
Uniform Public Expression Protection Act · Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit body of state-appointed commissioners that drafted the model act and promotes its adoption. Drafting body, therefore an interested party.
Related on this site: General Litigation
Served with a lawsuit over something you said, or thinking about filing one
The sixty-day window under Section 537.529 starts at service, so an early conversation is worth more than a late one.
Or call (314) 732-1547
This article is provided for general educational purposes only and is not legal or tax advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or Derek R. Haake. Statutes, court rules and their interpretation change, and the application of any law depends on the specific facts of a given matter. Verify current law with the Missouri Revisor of Statutes or the relevant agency or court, and consult a licensed attorney about your own situation before acting.