On Monday, in Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care Veterinary Center Inc., 2025 CO 62, the Colorado Supreme Court announced a two-step test for determining whether challenged speech or conduct is made “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. Courts must first assess whether the activity could reasonably be understood to relate to a public issue; then they must determine whether the activity contributed to public discussion or debate about that issue. The speaker’s motive plays no role in either inquiry.
The dispute arose after two community members—one identifying herself as a long-time breeder, trainer, sitter, and caregiver—posted a series of negative, widely viewed Facebook reviews criticizing a veterinary clinic’s quality of care and business practices, including alleged misdiagnoses and retaliatory conduct. The posts, shared on multiple local community pages, generated dozens of reactions and over 140 comments, which included accounts of other people’s experiences and statements that the information “may save lives.” When the posters refused to remove their content, the clinic sued for defamation.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, invoking the catchall provision that protects conduct or communication in furtherance of free speech or petition “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 13-20-1101(2)(a)(IV), C.R.S. (2025). The district court and the court of appeals denied the motion, concluding the posts were primarily private grievances that did not contribute to broader public discourse.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the division applied the wrong legal standard, and set forth the two-step analysis courts must apply when determining whether challenged speech is made “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
First, courts must ask whether an objective observer “could reasonably understand that the speech or conduct, considered in light of its content and context, is made in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest, even if it also implicates a private dispute.” While declining to define the full scope of “public issue” or “public interest,” the Court identified three nonexhaustive categories that often qualify: (1) statements that concern a person or entity in the public eye; (2) conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants; and (3) topics of widespread, public interest.
Second, courts must examine the relationship between the speech and the identified public issue to determine “whether the challenged activity contributed to public discussion or debate regarding that issue.” In this step, courts should consider factors such as audience, speaker, location, purpose, and timing.
Crucially, the Court emphasized that a speaker’s motive is not relevant to either step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The Court criticized the division’s reliance on motive—specifically, the defendants’ supposed desire “to exact some revenge”—in concluding the posts did not contribute to a broader public discussion about pet health care. At the same time, the Court recognized that while motive cannot be used to constrict the anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold protection, it may become relevant at a later stage—after the defendant establishes that the conduct is protected and the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success on the claim, such as in defamation claims requiring proof of actual malice.
Applying these principles, the Court agreed with the division that consumer information about veterinary services implicates a public issue given, the societal interest in animal welfare. It held that the division erred by discounting the anti-SLAPP protections based on the defendants’ perceived retaliatory intent and by treating the speakers’ private grievances as dispositive of the public-interest inquiry. The Court held the broader context—the speaker’s personal experiences and use of community forums, the sizeable local audience, the high level of engagement, and the posts’ focus on the quality and practices of a licensed veterinary facility—supports the conclusion that the posts reasonably implicated and contributed to public discussion on matters of public interest.
The Supreme Court reversed the division’s judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to apply the clarified two-step test.