TCPA Helps

Since its unanimous passage in 2011, the TCPA has disposed of innumerable meritless lawsuits aimed at suppressing and retaliating against for Texans exercising their First Amendment rights to speak freely, to petition, and to associate.

Grassroots & Citizens

The TCPA has repeatedly protected individuals facing lawsuits aimed at intimidating and retaliating against them after they speak out about important issues of significant public concern

Digital Communities

The TCPA has repeatedly protected social media platforms, Internet commenters, and online communities facing retaliatory lawsuits intended to intimidate them and chill speech about matters of public concern.

Public Officials

Both candidates for office and public officials themselves have successfully used the TCPA to obtain dismissal of retaliatory litigation brought in response to their exercise of First Amendment rights.

Non-Profit Organizations

The TCPA has protected environmental groups, labor unions, and other non-profit advocacy organizations facing retaliatory lawsuits aimed at keeping them from speaking out about important issues.

Domestic Violence Victims

The TCPA has repeatedly protected victims of domestic violence or harassment facing retaliatory lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence them.

Consumers

The TCPA has repeatedly protected consumers and consumer advocates facing retaliatory lawsuits aimed at intimidating and keeping them from speaking out about products and services in the marketplace.

Business Community

Throughout the state, business organizations across a wide range of sectors have used the TCPA to obtain dismissal of meritless litigation aimed at suppressing and retaliating against their exercise of First Amendment rights.

Banking and Financial Services

Banks throughout the State of Texas have used the TCPA to obtain dismissal of meritless litigation aimed at suppressing and retaliating against their exercise of First Amendment rights.

Law Enforcement

The TCPA has repeatedly protected law enforcement facing retaliatory lawsuits aimed at intimidating and keeping them from fulfilling their duties.

Charles Orenstein and Mike Hixenbaugh – Propublica

In 2018, Charles Orenstein and Mike Hixenbaugh reported on a pioneering Houston surgeon who was accused of violating federal research rules and skirting ethical guidelines.

When the surgeon filed a SLAPP suit against the reporters, it led to a six-year legal saga that only recently concluded with a ruling that their reporting was a “fair, true and impartial account” of the allegations.“My experience left me acutely aware how even when you win a lawsuit, you can still lose, and also how court records rarely tell the whole story,” Orenstein recently wrote of his experience.

Jody Barr – Former Reporter at KXAN

After KXAN published a report on the Texas Medical Board and its complaint and investigation process, a doctor and his practice filed a SLAPP lawsuit against the news station and investigative reporter Jody Barr. Barr still considers it the most “harrowing” moment of his career. “This could have been career-ending,” Barr said. “I think about this all the time. Every phone call I make, every time I write a sentence in a script or before a report airs, I think about going through this again. It has caused me to be extremely conservative in my approach to journalism.”

Chris Cobler – Former publisher and editor, Victoria Advocate

When the Victoria Advocate published a front-page story about the Texas Medical Board sanctioning a local doctor, the paper’s then-publisher and editor, Chris Cobler, did not think much of it. It was a straightforward, run-of-the-mill piece detailing of the allegations, findings, and discipline imposed by the medical regulator. But then, the doctor sued Cobler and his newsroom for defamation—a suit that ultimately cost the small paper around $25,000 in legal fees.

“This is the bread and butter of local journalism that was attacked by this lawsuit,” Cobler said. How would you report on what any public body is doing if you stood the chance of being hauled into court and having to spend tens, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit? You just couldn’t.”

Matt Smith and Amy Walters – Reveal

In 2016, an international charity filed a SLAPP suit against the nonprofit newsroom Reveal and two of its reporters, after they reported on the charity’s questionable spending and its ties to an alleged cult. In a nearly 70-page complaint, the charity listed 80 objections to Reveal’s reporting. After a 4.5 legal battle, a federal judge tossed the lawsuit.

“But the victory is somewhat pyrrhic,” wrote Reveal’s general counsel. “Fighting Planet Aid’s complaint was exceptionally costly to Reveal—both in lost reporting time and in other employee resources. Still, the effort was necessary for a case where Planet Aid alleged an estimated $25 million in damages, a sum that is twice CIR’s annual budget.”

Carmen Montiel – Former Miss Venezuela

When Carmen Montiel, a journalist and former Miss Venezuela, filed for divorce, she detailed the verbal and physical abuse she endured during her marriage. Her ex-husband, a renowned doctor in Houston, responded by filing a defamation suit.

“This suit prolonged my time to heal myself,” Montiel said. “I was looking forward to end[ing] my marriage, and it was impossible to start with my healing because of this ridiculous lawsuit, and the fact that it got prolonged because of games [my ex-husband’s] lawyer wanted to play.”

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas May 28, 2014, no pet.

Young v. Krantz, 434 S.W.3d 335

In 2010, Young hired an architect to design an outdoor living space and then contracted Perennial Properties GC, LLC to build it. Issues arose with Perennial’s performance, leading Young to file counterclaims and a negative Angie’s List review about Perennial’s work. In response, Perennial and its associates sued Young and her attorney for defamation and emotional distress. Young successfully had the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action brought about by the Angie’s list review dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Texarkana August 11, 2015, no pet.

Whisenhunt v. Lippincott, 474 S.W.3d 30

In May 2012, Creg Parks and Matthew Lippincott, administrators at First Surgery Suites, LLC, allegedly made disparaging remarks about Warren Whisenhunt, a nurse anesthetist contracted by the facility. Whisenhunt provided evidence in the form of emails from Lippincott, which detailed reports claiming Whisenhunt misrepresented himself, endangered patents for financial gain, and sexually harassed employees. Lippincott sued Whisenhunt for defamation tortious interference with existing business relationships and civil conspiracy. Lippincott successfully moved to dismiss the case under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas July 6, 2016, no pet.

Watson v. Hardman, 497 S.W.3d 601

In November 2014, a car accident in Louisiana killed multiple family members, including Michael and Trudi Hardman, as well as their child and others. Following the tragedy, a Go Fund Me account was set up to cover funeral expenses and support surviving children. Disputes arose when Trudi’s ex-husband, Darrell Watson, demanded more funds from the account, claiming misappropriation. Watson filed a Rule 202 petition accusing the Hardmans of misusing the funds. In response, the Hardmans sued Watson for defamation and emotional distress, asserting that Watson’s actions were defamatory. Watson moved to dismiss the claims under the TCPA, arguing his actions were protected under the right to petition and free speech. The appellate court partially agreed, ordering that the defamation cause of action be dismissed against Watson insofar as it was based on his Rule 202 petition.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 11, 2021, no pet.

United v. Fobbs, 619 S.W.3d 863

United, a company that identifies and marks underground utility lines, employed Fobbs, Johnson, and Harrell as locators. After leaving United, these former employees sued for defamation and invasion of privacy, alleging United continued using their names on Locate Request Tickets and Damage Trackers, falsely implicating them in damages and not compensating them for work. United filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, claiming the suit was related to its exercise of free speech and association rights, as the communications involved public safety and service issues. The appellate court agreed, dismissing the case under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas December 18, 2015, pet. denied

Tervita v. Sutterfield, 482 S.W.3d 280

Sutterfield, injured while working for Tervita in North Dakota, claimed Tervita misrepresented worker’s compensation benefits and created a hostile work environment, leading to his resignation or constructive discharge. After his compensation claim was denied by Terivita’s insurance company, Zurich, a Texas Department of Insurance hearing came down in his favot. Sutterfield then sued Tervita, Zurich, and two adjusters for Texas Labor Code violations, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy, partially based upon statements Terivita’s representative made during that hearing. Tervita moved to dismiss the suit under the TCPA, claiming it was based on their rights to associate and petition. The trial court denied the motion, and Tervita appealed. The appellate court ruled that the TCPA applied to claims based on Terivita’s statements at the hearing, but denied the TCPA as to the other causes of action.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Fort Worth November 22, 2023, pet. denied

Stickland v. Schlegel, No. 02-22-00281-CV, 2023 WL 8112889

Jackie Schlegel co-founded a vaccine choice organization composed of a c3, a c4, and a PAC. On the eve of her potential termination by the c4 board, Schlegel attempted to transfer $116,154.54 from the organization’s c4 accounts to its c3 accounts, which were controlled by a different, more sympathetic board. The c4 org reversed the transfer, fired Schlegel, and accused her of theft. The c4 organization then sued Schlegel for refusing to relinquish control of the c3 org, and misappropriating c4 assets. In the midst of this battle, Schlegel countered by suing an unrelated third party defendant, Stickland, for defamation for saying to Schlegel’s friend, in a multi-hour phone call: “Did you hear TVFC is having problems? Jackie Stole money.” The trial court denied Stickland’s TCPA motion, but the court of appeals reversed and granted it.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas June 24, 2014, pet. denied

Shipp v. Malouf, 439 S.W.3d 432

Malouf, a dentist and former owner of All Smiles Dental Center, sued investigative reporter Shipp for defamation after Shipp reported that Malouf had filed for personal bankruptcy. Shipp contested the county court’s jurisdiction and sought dismissal under the TCPA, arguing the suit infringed on his right to free speech. The appellate court agreed, dismissing the case against Shipp under the TCPA

Slide 1

Lane v. Phares, 544 S.W.3d 881

Tex. App.—Fort Worth March 29, 2018, no pet.

Lane, an opera singer and voice professor at the University of North Texas, sued her former student Phares for defamation over anonymous online comments alleging Lane’s poor teaching practices and professional conduct. Phares counterclaimed for fraud and filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, asserting her comments were protected free speech and that Lane is a public figure. The trial court granted Phares’s motion to dismiss, finding Lane to be a public figure who did not prove Phares acted with actual malice. The court’s findings emphasized Lane’s career involving media attention and her recognition as an opera singer and professor.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Austin July 16, 2020, no pet.

Rigup v. Sierra Hamilton, 613 S.W.3d 177

Sierra, a staffing firm specializing in the oil and gas industry, contracts with personnel and clients to provide specialized consultants. The firm alleges that RigUp, a competitor, has been soliciting its consultants to breach their contracts and join RigUp. Sierra filed a lawsuit against RigUp in January 2019, claiming tortious interference with contracts and unjust enrichment. In response to RigUp’s motion to dismiss under the TCPA, Sierra argued that the TCPA does not apply due to commercial-speech exemption and preemption by the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act, and that it had provided sufficient evidence to support its claims. The appellate court disagreed, dismissing the case under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 21, 2013, pet. denied

Rehak Creative Servs. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716

In the 2012 Republican primary for House District 133, Ann Witt accused her opponent, incumbent Representative Jim Murphy, of sidestepping Texas constitutional requirements by receiving payments from the Westchase District through his LLC, District Management Services. Witt’s campaign used a website called “How to Succeed in Government Without Really Trying” to make these allegations. The site featured claims that Murphy’s actions were unethical, including a specific accusation that Murphy awarded government contracts to companies whose CEOs contributed to his campaign. One such company, Rehak Creative Services, disputed these claims, arguing that the website misrepresented their business dealings and contributions. Rehak sued Witt for business disparagement. Witt successfully had the case dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Lane v. Phares, 544 S.W.3d 881

Tex. App.—Fort Worth March 29, 2018, no pet.

Slide 1

Tex. 2024

Polk Cnty. Publ’g Co. v. Coleman, 685 S.W.3d 71

Tommy Coleman, a former assistant district attorney in Williamson County, was involved in the controversial prosecution of Michael Morton, who was wrongfully convicted of murder in the 1980s. Coleman was criticized for mocking Morton’s attempts to obtain DNA testing of a key piece of evidence. After leaving Williamson County, Coleman became a prosecutor in Polk County. A June 2020 article in the Polk County Enterprise inaccurately claimed that Coleman had assisted in Morton’s prosecution when he had only participated in post-conviction proceedings. Coleman sued the newspaper for defamation. The paper successfully had the case dismissed under the TCPA. 

Slide 1

Tex. 2023

Lilith Fund for Reprod. Equity v. Dickson, 662 S.W.3d 355

The Lilith Fund, the Afiya Center, and the Texas Equal Access Fund, which advocate for legalized abortion, sued Mark Lee Dickson and Right to Life East Texas, who advocate against it. The dispute arose after Dickson successfully lobbied for Waskom, Texas, to become a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn,” and publicly labeled the plaintiffs as “criminal organizations” involved in “murder” through abortion. Plaintiffs claimed defamation, while Dickson argued his statements were protected free speech. Dickson had the case successfully dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 19, 2022

Bauta v. Mulvey, 646 S.W.3d 347

Fr. Krzysztof Tomaz Bauta, a priest, was accused of misappropriating parish funds, leading to two audits identifying significant financial anomalies and a Texas rangers investigation confirming over $266,411 in diverted funds. After his removal and subsequent legal actions, including a dropped felony theft charge with potential for future indictment, Bauta sued for malicious prosecution, defamation, and emotional distress. Bauta’s lawsuit was dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.

Alphonso v Deshotel, 417 S.W.3d 194

Priest Alphonso was accused of diverting donations intended for St. Jude Chapel into his own accounts as well as his relatives. St. Jude Chapel sued Alphonso and he settled for $300,000 and he shut down the charitable organization he created. A bishop in his Diocese, Deshotel, made a statement to parishioners that Alphonso had misappropriated funds and had made restitution. Alphonso sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The lawsuit was dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.

Hearst Newspaper v. Status Lounge, 639 S.W.3d 752

On April 19, 2016, a man was shot in the arm near 3700 Dowling Street in Houston. The next day, The Houston Chronicle and KHOU-TV reported on the incident. The Chronicle’s article identified the location as the Status Lounge and stated that witnesses claimed the bar owner and the band, mentioning the shooting but not naming the bar. Both articles included photographs of the bar. The bar sued for defamation. Hearst Newspaper successfully dismissed the case under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. 2016

Greer v. Abraham, 489 S.W.3d 440

Greer and AgendaWise accused Abraham of engaging in certain conduct at a political event. They retracted the initial reporting, but Abraham complained about the retractions and sued. Abraham is a public figure and thus subject to news being published about him. Thus, there must be proof that there was actual malice in the publication, which there was not. The TCPA protected AgendaWise.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2016, pet. denied

Entravision v. Salinas, 487 S.W.3d 276

Everardo Villarreal Salinas, the Mayor of Reynosa, and his father Arturo Villarreal Tijerina sued Entravision for defamation over a Facebook post suggesting Arturo was arrested with a large sum of money, which they claimed defamed Everardo by association. Entravision successfully had the case dismissed against it under the TCPA because it involved a matter of public concern and that Everardo, as a public figure, had to meet a higher standard of proof for defamation.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] November 17, 2020, no pet.

Enter Crude GP LLC v. Sealy Part, LLC, 614 S.W.3d 283

Sealy Partners, planning to develop commercial property in Sealy, Texas, was concerned about new storage tanks being built by Enterprise on adjacent land. Sealy Partners alleged that Enterprise and ECGP misrepresented their plans and failed to honor promises about the tanks’ distance from Sealy Partners’ land, which ultimately blocked financing and development due to the tanks’ blast zone. Sealy Partners sued for nuisance, fraudulent misrepresentation, tortious interference, promissory estoppel, trespass, and civil conspiracy. Enterprise and ECGP filed a TCPA motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were based on protected activities. All but the nuisance and trespass claims were successfully dismissed under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Eastland April 18, 2019, pet. denied

Deepwell Energy Servs v. Aveda, 574 S.W.3d 925

Deepwell alleged that Aveda used its confidential information to lure away Deepwell’s employees. This prompted Deepwell to file a lawsuit against the Aveda under various legal theories, including defamation and tortious interference. In response, Aveda filed a successful motion to dismiss Deepwell’s lawsuit under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Austin October 9, 2020, no pet.

De La Torre v. De La Torre, 613 S.W.3d 307

In a 2018 divorce case, Crystal filed a petition for divorce from Armando, who later alleged in his counterpetition that Crystal made false reports of child abuse and criminal assault. Armando sought a civil penalty and attorney’s fees under the Texas Family Code. Crystal moved to dismiss these claims under the TCPA, but the trial court did not rule on her motion, stating the TCPA did not apply in divorce cases. Crystal appealed this decision, arguing her motion was wrongfully denied and the 3rd Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the trial court.

Slide 1

Tex. 2019

Dallas Morning News v. Hall, 579 S.W.3d 370

Balthasar Cruz sued over article by James Van Sickle on the Burnt Orange Report, which included a statement about Cruz being removed by police from an Elizabeth Edwards book signing event. Cruz claimed this statement was false and defamatory, constituting libel per se, and sought damages. Defendants successfully dismissed the case under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. 2019

Dallas Morning News v. Hall, 579 S.W.3d 370

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas December 3, 2014, pet. denied

Cruz v. Van Sickle, 452 S.W.3d 503

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 29, 2020, no pet.

Choctaw Constr. Servs. v. rail-life, 617 S.W.3d 143

Esequiel Olmeda and David Pina Torres, former employees of Choctaw, formed a rival company, Rail-Life, and were subsequently terminated by Choctaw. Rail-Life sued Choctaw for tortious interference with contracts, business disparagement, defamation, and unfair competition, alleging that Choctaw falsely accused Rail-Life of misusing Choctaw-issued eRailsafe badges and stealing fuel and equipment. Choctaw successfully dismissed the lawsuit under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] January 26, 2021, no pet.

Buzbee v. Clear Channel Outdoor, 616 S.W.3d 14

Anthony G. Buzbee, a candidate for Houston mayor in the November 2019 election, sued Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC, and Sylvester Turner, his opponent, alleging that billboards promoting “AlertHouston” were actually campaign propaganda for Turner. Buzbee claimed these billboards, which appeared before the election, violated Texas Election Code by not being reported as campaign contributions. He sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. Clear Channel and Turner filed successful motions to dismiss under the TCPA.

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied

Better Bus. Bureau v. BH DFW, 402 S.W.3d 299

BH DFW, Inc, a swimming pool construction company, was accredited by the BBB and received an “A+” rating for many years. In 2010, the BBB challenged BH DFW’s advertisement claiming to be the “World’s Largest!” and requested evidence to substantiate this claim. BH DFW provided some data but did not meet the BBB’s demands. Subsequently, the BBB revoked BH DFW’s accreditation and downgraded its rating to “F,” leading BH DFW to sue the BBB for breach of contract. The BBB successfully dismissed the case under the TCPA.  

Slide 1

Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied

Better Bus. Bureau v. BH DFW, 402 S.W.3d 299

Slide 1

Tex. App.—El Paso September 14, 2021, no pet.

Sunchon v. Sun Joo Koo, 633 S.W.3d 712

Appellant worked for Appellees and began experiencing sexual harassment from Mr. Koo during commutes starting in 2017. In July 2019, she reported a sexual assault by Mr. Koo to the police. Appellees later sued Appellant for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging she made false accusations and engaged in misconduct. Appellant moved to dismiss the suit under the TCPA, arguing it was retaliatory and involved her rights to free speech and petition. The appellate court partially dismissed the causes of action against the appellant insofar as the causes of action were based upon appellant’s reporting to the police and statements made during proceedings at the Texas Workforce Commission.

TCPA Helps

Grassroots & Citizens

Digital Communities

Public Officials

Non-Profit Organizations

Domestic Violence Victims

Consumers

Business Community

Banking and Financial Services

Law Enforcement

Portraits of SLAAP

Charles Orenstein and Mike Hixenbaugh – Propublica

Jody Barr – Former Reporter at KXAN

Chris Cobler – Former publisher and editor, Victoria Advocate

Matt Smith and Amy Walters – Reveal

Carmen Montiel – Former Miss Venezuela

Get in Touch

info@protectfreespeechcoalition.com

Join the Coalition

Home

Contact

Who Are We

News

TCPA At Risk

Join Us

TCPA Helps