Texas Capitol in Austin. Photo: Clayton Harrison/Shutterstock.com

Forty-five witnesses testified Monday in a hearing on a bill that would narrow the state's anti-SLAPP law to exclude cases that lawmakers never meant the law to cover.

The original House Bill 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, attracted vociferous criticism from a coalition of media associations and news outlets. Based on their feedback, Leach introduced a committee substitute that's vastly different from the original legislation he'd filed.

The bill seeks to amend the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which was meant to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP lawsuits. People who were sued for exercising their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association or the right to petition the government could quickly move to dismiss the lawsuit, and get an award of costs and attorney fees if they won.

“The TCPA was supposed to be a shield for people of Texas, but it's become a sword,” said Leach during Monday's hearing before the Texas House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. The law's been used in family law cases, trade secrets litigation and family violence matters, which the legislature never anticipated, Leach said.

His original bill had deleted many of the current law's definitions, drawing an uproar from media associations and news outlets, who say it would gut the law that protects journalists.

Instead, the substitute reinstates most of the definitions. Leach's substitute does tweak one definition for “matter of public concern,” and clarifies it means speech related to public officials, public figures and others who draw substantial public interest, and to conduct that impacts many people or topics of major public interest.

The substitute also adds that an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss couldn't be used in procedural actions or motions that don't add or change a claim in the litigation, nor to alternative dispute resolution proceedings or post-judgment enforcement actions.

It includes a long list of case types the anti-SLAPP law is not supposed to apply to, such as cases arising in employment contexts, over trade secrets, family law matters, certain criminal cases and business disputes, common-law fraud claims, and more.

The new bill also has a provision making it clear that the anti-SLAPP law protects work by journalists, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers and other content creators. Another part of the bill expressly protects victims of family or sexual violence.

Another major change: the original HB 2730 said a litigant could nonsuit his or her claims before a hearing on a motion to dismiss, and then a judge could not award costs and attorney fees. That provision was deleted entirely in the substitute.

The judiciary committee also heard testimony on another lawmaker's bill that would amend a different type of motion to dismiss in Texas law.

Back in 2011, the legislature passed a law that tweaked a motion to dismiss when a lawsuit had no basis in law or fact, by providing that a litigant who won a dismissal could collect costs and attorney fees. Later, the Texas Supreme Court created Rule 91a in the Texas Rules of Procedure to implement the law.

Under HB 3300 by Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Kerrville, the proposed change would tweak the law to allow judges to use their discretion to determine whether to award costs and attorney fees, rather than a mandatory award under current law.

Murr told the committee that the mandatory fee award discourages litigants from using the 91a motion to dismiss. Giving judges the discretion to award fees allows them to weigh the merits of each case.

“The goal here is to encourage greater use of the motion to dismiss by parties,” Murr said.

Bandera solo Wayne Ramsay, the only witness to testify on the Murr bill, said he supports the change. He said one of his clients has a valid claim but is afraid to sue because he doesn't want to be saddled by attorney fees.

“It's wrong to discourage people from being able to resolve valid disputes,” Ramsay said. “I'm as opposed as I can be to these loser-pay laws.”

Read the committee substitute of Leach's HB 2730 here.