The increasing polarization of public debate is leading to a growing number of conflicts at the intersection of freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights, such as reputation, dignity, and goodwill. A response to this phenomenon is the new Anti-SLAPP Act, which entered into force on 8 July 2026.
When does a lawsuit cease to serve the protection of individual rights and instead become a tool for suppressing public debate? How can courts determine whether a claimant seeks to restrict legitimate and well-founded criticism? The new legislation is intended to help answer these questions and define the limits of exercising the right of access to justice.
What Is a SLAPP?
The term SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), widely used in public discourse, refers to legal actions aimed at suppressing public participation and debate.
The mere fact of bringing an action before a court does not make it a SLAPP. What matters is the lawsuit’s actual purpose. Proceedings may be considered a SLAPP particularly where they are not genuinely intended to protect the claimant’s rights but rather to create a chilling effect by suppressing public debate and discouraging individuals from speaking out on matters of public concern.
Such actions often rely on existing economic, organizational, or social imbalances between the parties.
A typical example of conduct bearing the hallmarks of a SLAPP would be a situation where a social activist informs the public about well-founded concerns regarding pollution of a river by Company X. Instead of responding substantively to those concerns, the company files multiple lawsuits seeking substantial damages, with the aim of limiting the activist’s activities and deterring further public engagement.
Purpose of the Anti-SLAPP Act
The Act of 29 May 2026 on Special Protective Measures in Civil Proceedings for Persons Participating in Public Debate (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 830) has been in force since 8 July 2026 and implements Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024.
The Polish legislature went further than the EU legislator. While the Directive applies only to cross-border cases, the Polish Act also covers purely domestic disputes.
The primary objective of the legislation is apparent from its title. In essence, the Act seeks to counter so-called “gag lawsuits”, which are used not to protect violated rights but to discourage participants in public debate from speaking on matters of public interest.
How Does the Act Define Public Debate?
A key question is how the Act defines public debate.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Anti-SLAPP Act, public debate includes:
“any statements or other activities undertaken in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information, freedom of artistic creation and scientific research, freedom of assembly and association, or freedom of conscience and religion, as well as preparatory, supportive, or facilitating activities directly related to such statements or actions in connection with a matter capable of attracting legitimate public interest.”
The provision explicitly mentions matters relating to fundamental rights, public health, public safety, the environment or climate, as well as activities of public officials and proceedings before public authorities.
Accordingly, public debate covers, in principle, all statements and activities relating to issues of legitimate public concern.
When Can a Lawsuit Be Considered a SLAPP?
When assessing whether a claim constitutes a SLAPP, courts are required to consider all circumstances of the case, including in particular:
-
the disproportionate nature of the claims asserted,
-
the repeated initiation of similar proceedings,
-
intimidating conduct,
-
abuse of procedural instruments,
-
the use of economic or political superiority to exert pressure on the defendant.
The Act introduces special safeguards against lawsuits intended to suppress public debate, as well as against manifestly unfounded claims and abuses of procedural rights.
A court may determine that a lawsuit constitutes a SLAPP either on its own initiative or upon a defendant’s motion. Importantly, the burden of proving that the action does not seek to restrict or suppress public debate rests with the claimant.
Who Should Be Concerned?
Although the Anti-SLAPP Act is often associated with the protection of journalists, activists, and civil society organizations, its practical significance may be much broader.
The legislation may apply whenever issues of public interest arise concerning the activities of private or public entities, particularly in areas such as environmental protection, public health, safety, fundamental rights, or the conduct of public officials.
Consequently, particular caution should be exercised by municipalities, energy companies, industrial enterprises, developers, transportation providers, pharmaceutical companies, and media organizations when bringing claims relating to statements that concern matters of legitimate public interest.
Five Things Best Avoided When Filing a Lawsuit
-
Bringing legal actions in trivial matters where the statements in question fall within the limits of permissible criticism and accepted standards of public debate.
-
Seeking remedies that are clearly disproportionate to the scale and consequences of the alleged infringement. In personal rights cases, courts often award significantly lower amounts than those sought by claimants. In many situations, requesting payment of an appropriate sum to a charitable purpose, such as a non-profit organization or foundation, may be a more effective solution.
-
Filing multiple similar lawsuits against the same individual based on identical or substantially similar facts. A safer approach is to address all alleged infringements in a single proceeding.
-
Seeking interim measures intended to restrict public debate in advance, particularly by requesting bans on publication or prohibitions on speaking publicly about the matter.
-
Suing a natural person solely because they are an easier target, where responsibility could potentially also lie with an organization, editorial office, or other entity on whose behalf the individual acted.
What Sanctions Does the Act Provide?
The Act does not merely indicate when a claim may be regarded as a SLAPP; it also introduces sanctions for bringing such proceedings.
In particular, the court may:
-
Impose a fine of up to twenty times the statutory minimum wage (approximately PLN 96,000 in 2026), and in especially justified cases, particularly where the claimant enjoys a significant advantage or intends to cause especially severe consequences for the defendant, up to one hundred times the minimum wage (over PLN 480,000).
-
Order the claimant, at their own expense, to publish the operative part of the judgment in a specified manner and for a specified period.
-
Mandatorily require the claimant to reimburse the defendant’s litigation costs.
