Libel / L3
Foreign billionaire suing a critic
A foreign billionaire sues a local critic in local courts over a harsh but clearly opinion-based review of their business conduct.
What we score
How exposed is the critic to a well-funded suit over opinion?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | Opinion is fully protected; the suit is struck out at once and the claimant pays costs (anti-SLAPP). |
| 8 | Strong opinion defence; early dismissal likely; costs partly recovered. |
| 6 | Opinion defence available but only at trial; the critic bears heavy costs. |
| 4 | Courts are claimant-friendly; libel tourism is common; settlement under pressure is the norm. |
| 2 | The claimant can file a criminal complaint against the critic. |
| 0 | Critics are routinely jailed on such complaints. |
Evidence used: Anti-SLAPP law; opinion and honest-comment defences; jurisdiction rules for foreign claimants; costs rules; known SLAPP cases.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 7 | 0 | 7.4 | Pure opinion is not actionable, and a foreign judgment obtained abroad cannot be enforced in the US unless it meets First Amendment standards (SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. 4102). About 40 states plus DC have anti-SLAPP laws, often with early dismissal and fee-shifting. A foreign claimant can usually sue in federal diversity court, however, and the 5th, 10th, 11th and DC Circuits do not apply state anti-SLAPP laws there. In those courts the critic pays their own costs until summary judgment. |
| Netherlands | 6 | 7 | 0 | 6.6 | Dutch courts strongly protect value judgments that have a factual basis. Since 14 July 2026 the anti-SLAPP implementation (Kamerstuk 36731) lets courts order claimants to give security for costs. Dutch cost awards follow fixed scales (liquidatietarief), so a winning defendant still bears much of their own legal cost. Insult is a complaint-based offence (art. 269 Sr), so the claimant can file a criminal complaint, but art. 266(2) excludes statements judging matters of public interest. |
| Czechia | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6.0 | Czechia had no anti-SLAPP mechanism in force as of the latest information found. A Ministry of Justice bill to transpose Directive 2024/1069 (security for costs, fines up to 50,000 CZK for abusive suits) was still in Parliament at the 7 May 2026 deadline. Value judgments are protected under Constitutional Court case law, but the critic must defend through trial. Costs are recovered on a loser-pays tariff. A criminal complaint for defamation cannot succeed against pure opinion. |
| New Zealand | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6.0 | New Zealand has no anti-SLAPP statute. Honest opinion is a defence if the opinion is genuine and the facts it rests on are true or privileged (Defamation Act ss9-11), and clearly opinion-based reviews can be struck out, but often only after pleadings fights. Foreign claimants can sue in NZ courts; costs follow the event on a scale, so a winning critic recovers only part of the outlay. |
| Ireland | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5.0 | Honest opinion is a statutory defence (Defamation Act 2009 s20), but it is usually decided at trial; s34 allows early dismissal only where the words cannot bear a defamatory meaning. The anti-SLAPP Part 4A (early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, from the EU Directive) was enacted in the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 but its commencement was deferred to align with a separate SLAPPs Bill, published only as a General Scheme in February 2026; no commencement had been reported by the coding date. Costs follow the event but defence costs before trial are heavy. |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 5 | −0.5 | 4.5 | Opinion is protected by the honest-opinion defence (Defamation Act 2013 s3), and meaning and fact-versus-opinion are often decided at an early preliminary trial. There is no general anti-SLAPP law: the early-dismissal and costs-protection rule in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 s194–195 (in force 18 June 2025) covers only speech about economic crime. General anti-SLAPP bills were introduced in June 2026 but are not law. London remains a favoured forum for wealthy claimants, and defendants face high costs before strike-out. |
| Germany | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4.4 | Value judgments get strong protection under Art. 5 GG, and the loser pays statutory fees. But Germany has no anti-SLAPP law in force: the cross-border-only bill (BT-Drs. 21/3942) was still pending after the EU deadline of 7 May 2026. Claimants can pick a claimant-friendly press chamber anywhere in Germany (flying jurisdiction) and seek ex parte injunctions, and can also file a criminal insult complaint (§ 185 StGB). Prosecutors usually refer such complaints to private prosecution. |
| Denmark | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4.4 | Defamation is a privately prosecuted crime (§§ 267, 275), so a foreign claimant can bring a criminal action against a local critic. Value judgments are protected under § 269 and ECHR case law that Danish courts follow, but only at trial. Denmark has no domestic anti-SLAPP law; loser-pays costs apply, but awards rarely cover a defendant's full costs. |
| Mexico | 5.5 | 5 | −1 | 4.2 | Mexico has no anti-SLAPP law or early-dismissal mechanism. Opinion is protected by Supreme Court doctrine and CDMX civil honour law art. 25, but only after full litigation. Ex-governor Humberto Moreira's suit against columnist Sergio Aguayo took about 6 years: an appeals court ordered Aguayo to pay MXN 10 million before the Supreme Court reversed in March 2022 (amparo directo 30/2020). In Nuevo León, Yucatán and Zacatecas (about 7% of the population) a claimant can also file a criminal complaint. |
| Singapore | 2 | 4 | 0 | 3.2 | Singapore has no anti-SLAPP law. Defendants can only use the general strike-out rules in the Rules of Court 2021, which have a high threshold. Fair comment is a defence only if the comment rests on facts the defendant proves true, which usually means going to trial, and costs are only partly recoverable. Foreign claimants can sue over material accessed in Singapore, and any claimant can also bring a private complaint of criminal defamation under Penal Code s499/500. |
| Switzerland | 2 | 4 | −1 | 2.2 | Switzerland has no anti-SLAPP law. A foreign claimant can file a criminal defamation complaint (Arts. 173-174) as well as a civil suit, and interim measures against media became easier on 1 Jan 2025 (Art. 266 Civil Procedure Code). Value judgments are protected only if not presented as factual, which is decided case by case. An OFCOM-commissioned ZHAW study (2024) found SLAPPs, typically filed by wealthy individuals or firms, impose heavy costs and delays and cause self-censorship. |