Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care Veterinarian Center, Inc.

2025 CO 62. No. 24SC8. First Amendment—Anti-SLAPP Statute—Public Issue or Issue of Public Interest.

December 8, 2025

This case required the supreme court to interpret the phrase “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, CRS § 13-20-1101. The court set forth a two-step test to determine whether particular speech or conduct falls within the statute’s protection.

First, a court must determine whether an objective observer could reasonably understand that the challenged speech or conduct, considered in light of its content and context, was made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest, even if it also implicates a private dispute. Second, the court must examine the relationship between the challenged speech or conduct and the public issue or issue of public interest identified and ask whether the challenged activity contributed to public discussion or debate regarding that issue. The court additionally held that a defendant’s motive is not relevant to determining whether their challenged speech or conduct is made “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” under § 13-20-1101(2)(a)(IV). Rather, a defendant’s motive is only relevant when determining whether a plaintiff has established a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail on a claim under § 13-20-1101(3)(a).

Here, the division correctly concluded that the petitioners’ statements could reasonably be understood to be made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. But it erroneously determined that the petitioners’ statements were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because they were made primarily for the purpose of airing a private grievance. In addition, the division mistakenly focused on the petitioners’ personal motives when it concluded that the posts didn’t contribute to any broader public discussion about pet health care or connect to any issue of public interest.

Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the division with directions to return the case to the trial court to apply the two-step test.