New Hampshire

This guide was authored by Zivile Raskauskaite, Skye Lucas, and Sara George, working with Professor Jared Schroeder at the Missouri School of Journalism. Grant support for this project was provided by the Society to Protect Journalists and the Reynolds Journalism Institute. 

Anti-SLAPP Protection: New Hampshire does not have an anti-SLAPP law. 

Helpful Cases: While New Hampshire does not have an anti-SLAPP statute, state court decisions have provided insights regarding avoiding discovery, protecting anonymous sources, and quashing frivolous lawsuits. 

• Spofford v. New Hampshire Public Radio, No. 218-2022-CV-00803 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): Eric Spofford sued New Hampshire Public Radio for defamation after it published accusations of sexual misconduct against him. NHPR filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Spofford failed to allege that NHPR journalists had acted with actual malice, but also granted Spofford’s request for limited discovery so that he could amend his complaint. NHPR defendants subsequently produced notes, transcriptions of interviews with sources, and internal communications regarding source credibility. The court reviewed the documents in camera and found no evidence to suggest actual malice, thus declining to provide the materials to Spofford and dismissing the case. 

• Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Indus., Inc., 160 N.H. 227 (2010): Mortgage Specialists sued defendant Implode and an anonymous commenter for statements and information posted on Implode’s website, alleging that the information (plaintiff’s loan figures) were confidential and unlawfully published and that the anonymous comments posted on Implode’s site were defamatory. The trial court ordered defendant to take down the “confidential” loan information, delete the allegedly defamatory comments, produce to plaintiff documents that would disclose the source of the “confidential” information, and disclose the identity of the anonymous commenter. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court, finding that (1) the trial court had erred by failing to analyze the application of the qualified newsgathering privilege before ordering disclosure of the source, and (2) a much stricter standard of proof by plaintiff was required before defendant could be required to disclose the identity of the anonymous commenter, because “posters have a First Amendment right to retain their anonymity and not to be subject to frivolous suits for defamation brought solely to unmask their identity.” The NH Supreme Court also reversed the trial court’s order that prohibited the republication of postings, finding that it was an unjustified prior restraint.  RCFP submitted an amicus brief to the NH Supreme Court in connection with this case.

• Automated Transactions, LLC v. Am. Bankers Ass’n, 172 N.H. 528 (2019): The plaintiff sued 13 defendants alleging defamation and violation of the NH Consumer Protection Act in connection with defendants’ publications about plaintiff which referred to plaintiff as, inter alia, a “patent troll.”  The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the challenged statements were non-actionable statements of opinion.  The state Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the finding that the statements were opinion, and also held that it was appropriate for the trial court to reach this conclusion on a motion to dismiss, contra to plaintiff’s argument that dismissal was “premature.” 

Legislative Activity: An anti-SLAPP bill (HB1475) was introduced and referred to New Hampshire’s House Judiciary Committee in March 2024, but never received a vote.

There have been other attempts to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in the state, but the state Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed such statutes. In 1994, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire published an opinion of the justices assessing proposed anti-SLAPP legislation. The opinion was requested by the state Senate as they considered SB 661, a bill that would create a special motion to strike for SLAPP suits. In its opinion, the NH Supreme Court wrote that the proposed special motion to strike procedure would violate the New Hampshire Constitution by depriving litigants of the right to a jury trial.

Of Note: Under N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:15, if the court considers any action or defense to be frivolous or “intended to harass or intimidate the prevailing party,” the court or the prevailing party can make a motion for summary judgment and be awarded with “the amount of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party plus $1,000.”