But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?
> infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again
No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund.
More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
I have successfully defended myself from a SLAPP lawsuit. I have also been arrested. To quote the arresting officer of the unrelated (and questionable) arrest:
"You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!"
Defending yourself with an anti-SLAPP mechanism is expensive, time-consuming, and (even with an attorney) both parties can be made to look foolish.
In my own SLAPP lawsuit, I represented myself (so no attorney fees). I don't recommend others pick fights with megacorporations.
Is that's what's happening here? The bit about suing her "even if the statements she is making are true" makes me think they're not trying to sue her via defamation, but through non-disparagement agreements. If that's the case, I'd hesitate to characterize this as SLAPP. If you voluntarily entered into a non-disparagement agreement and got something in exchange (eg. in exchange for severance or whatever), then at the very least it's slightly different than a journalist or whatever trying to expose some scandal.
No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund.
More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.