A woman sued an opposing side’s lawyer, claiming his blog post detailing the Snapchat lawsuit was defamatory. The lower court allowed the case to proceed, rejecting the lawyer’s anti-SLAPP motion. But the appeals court dismissed the case under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP law, finding there was no defamation and nothing written with actual malice.

Two weeks after reviving claims in an underlying case, the Georgia Court of Appeals tossed a defendant’s defamation claim against an attorney for posting an article on his law firm’s website about a personal injury lawsuit he filed. The appeals court said Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute barred the lawsuit filed by a woman who was accused of using Snapchat’s Speed Filter to take a selfie just before she hit another car and seriously injured its driver in 2015.

The North American Olive Oil Association filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court against television personality Dr. Oz for statements he made regarding the authenticity of olive oil imported into the U.S. “The court has grave concerns that the motivation for the present action falls squarely within the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute as an attempt to chill speech,” wrote Judge Alford Dempsey, Jr. The judge dismissed the suit.

Georgia’s legislature revised the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, extending coverage to “[a]ny written or oral statement or writing or petition made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest or concern” and “[a]ny . . . conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public concern.”

A Georgia court clarified the protection afforded by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, noting that a media story not related to a “current governmental investigation” does not fall under the protection of the anti-SLAPP law, even if the story is the basis of a later investigation.

A judge in Atlanta rejected Wal-Mart's claims that a man’s website and satirical products violated the company's trademark. In an 87-page order, the judge said the products qualified as protected noncommercial speech because his goal was to criticize Wal-Mart, not to make a profit from his products.

A woman wrote e-mails and posted comments on the Internet expressing her dissatisfaction with the treatment her disabled son was receiving at his care facility. When the care facility demanded that she apologize for and retract her comments, she refused. The care facility sued her for libel, but she claimed that the lawsuit was intended to silence her and asked the court to dismiss the case under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Humane Society sued a former employee/whistleblower for defamation seeking $250,000. The Atlanta Humane Society argued that the employee defamed them when she made statements to a television reporter that the Human Society made misleading claims and failed to engage in animal cruelty investigations.