SLAPP Lawsuits Target Reporting on Google Data Center Funding and a Surveillance-Tech CEO’s Arrest

Jessica Kivell, a mother and health-care worker, filed public-records requests with the Arkansas Public Service Commission and obtained documents showing that Google would fund only one-third of a solar plant built to power its West Memphis data center, contrary to the company’s public claim that ratepayers would bear no cost. After Kivell shared the records with the *Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Entergy Arkansas sued Kivell, the newspaper, its reporter and the *Arkansas Times*, alleging that the commission erred in releasing the records and that they contained trade secrets. Entergy also contested the newspaper’s cost calculations. U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky denied Entergy’s request for an emergency gag order, and the case was later dropped. Because the suit was filed in federal court, the defendants could not recover their attorneys’ fees, even though Arkansas’s anti-SLAPP statute would have allowed such recovery in state court.

The Intercept

In 2023, independent journalist Jack Poulson published a story on his outlet All-Source Intelligence about the 2021 domestic-violence arrest of Maury Blackman, then CEO of Premise Data, a surveillance-technology firm with U.S. government contracts. Blackman sued Poulson, Substack (the article’s host), and others to suppress the story and the linked police report, which he claimed should have remained sealed. A California judge dismissed the suit as a SLAPP, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants under the state’s robust anti-SLAPP law.

The Intercept

Arkansas and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP statutes, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—covering Arkansas—has declined to apply state anti-SLAPP laws in federal cases, leaving plaintiffs without a financial deterrent. By contrast, California courts routinely enforce the state’s anti-SLAPP provisions, allowing defendants to recover legal costs. The Supreme Court’s precedent in *Florida Star v. BJF* and other cases bars prior restraints on the press when the government inadvertently releases information, reinforcing the legal basis for dismissing the suits.

The Intercept

Both lawsuits were dismissed, yet the plaintiffs succeeded in generating national coverage of the underlying information—a phenomenon described as the Streisand effect. Advocates, including Freedom of the Press Foundation director Seth Stern, argue that the disparity between state and federal courts creates a “forum shopping” risk, where corporations can choose venues that minimize penalties. The article concludes that Congress should enact a federal anti-SLAPP law to provide uniform protection for journalists and public-record requesters, ensuring that the ability to request information or publish news does not depend on the chosen courthouse.

The Intercept