Victory for consumer advocacy Missouri (U.P.E.P.A.) 2026

 Missouri’s New Anti-SLAPP Law (UPEPA): What Citizen Journalists, Consumer Advocates, and Pro Se Litigants Need to Know

By Albert B. Pepper Jr. Founder, Phoenix Rising Productions LLC | Member, Society of Professional Journalists (#100088792) | Professional Consumer Advocate & Independent Citizen Journalist St. Louis, Missouri

On August 28, 2026, Missouri’s legal landscape for free speech changes in a fundamental way. With the signing of Senate Bills 835 and 1067, the state has enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA)—moving from one of the nation’s weakest anti-SLAPP environments to a modern, gold-standard framework that protects public expression.

As a consumer advocate, independent citizen journalist, and pro se litigant who has personally faced legal efforts to silence public criticism, I have examined these reforms in detail. This summary outlines what the new law does, why it matters, and how it strengthens the position of ordinary Missourians who speak on matters of public concern.

 Missouri’s previous anti-SLAPP statute (§ 537.528 RSMo) offered limited protection. It applied mainly to speech connected to public hearings or quasi-judicial governmental meetings. Criticism of private attorneys, corporate practices, consumer issues, or other matters of public concern outside formal government proceedings remained vulnerable to costly, meritless lawsuits designed to exhaust defendants financially.

Senate Bills 835 and 1067, signed by Governor Mike Kehoe on July 13, 2026, replace that outdated framework. Effective August 28, 2026, the new law (codified as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) applies to a much wider range of protected expression, including:

• Communication in governmental proceedings
• Communication on issues under governmental consideration
• Exercise of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on matters of public concern

This shift brings Missouri in line with the leading model statute developed by the Uniform Law Commission and adopted by a growing number of states.

 The practical power of UPEPA lies in three procedural mechanisms that directly target the tactics used in strategic lawsuits against public participation:

1. Automatic Stay of DiscoveryFiling a special anti-SLAPP motion immediately freezes most discovery. Plaintiffs can no longer force defendants into expensive document production, interrogatories, or depositions while the motion is pending. Limited discovery is allowed only when it is essential to resolving the motion itself. This removes the primary tool of financial attrition against pro se litigants and independent journalists.

2. Immediate Interlocutory Appeal RightsIf a trial court denies the special motion to dismiss, the defendant has the right to an immediate appeal. Proceedings in the trial court are halted while the appellate court reviews the decision. This prevents a single incorrect ruling from forcing a speaker into a full, costly trial.

3. Mandatory Fee-ShiftingWhen a court grants the special motion and dismisses the case because it targets protected public expression, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and litigation expenses. This reverses the traditional American Rule dynamic and turns frivolous SLAPP suits into high-risk financial liabilities for those who file them.

Together, these provisions make it far more difficult and expensive for institutional actors to use the civil justice system as a tool of suppression.

 A Personal Illustration of Why Reform Was Needed

In May 2026, I faced an ex parte application for an order of protection in Anthony R. Friedman d/b/a Friedman Law Firm LLC v. Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC (Case #2611-PN00554, 11th Judicial Circuit, St. Charles County). On May 13, 2026, the Honorable William Byrnes granted my Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice.

Although I prevailed under the old legal framework, the episode highlighted the structural vulnerability that existed for citizen journalists and consumer advocates whose speech falls outside narrow governmental-hearing protections. The new UPEPA closes that gap for future cases filed on or after August 28, 2026.

Strong anti-SLAPP laws do not grant immunity for false or defamatory statements. They do, however, create early procedural checks that prevent the mere filing of a lawsuit from becoming a successful silencing tactic. For independent voices—those without institutional legal budgets—this distinction is critical.

Missouri’s adoption of UPEPA strengthens the ability of:

• Consumer advocates to report on marketplace and professional conduct issues
• Citizen journalists to investigate and publish on matters of public concern
• Pro se litigants to defend against retaliatory civil actions without being driven into financial exhaustion

The law recognizes that public scrutiny of attorneys, businesses, and institutions engaged in matters of public concern is a core civil liberty, not a privilege reserved for well-funded parties.

• The new protections apply to civil actions filed or asserted on or after August 28, 2026.

• Coverage is significantly broader than the old § 537.528 RSMo standard.

• Early dismissal, discovery stays, interlocutory appeals, and mandatory fee recovery are now available tools.

• The statute is designed to be construed broadly to protect constitutional rights of free expression.

Independent journalists and consumer advocates remain committed to holding institutional power accountable. With UPEPA now part of Missouri law, those who speak truth to power do so with some of the strongest statutory safeguards available in the United States.

Albert B. Pepper Jr. is the founder of Phoenix Rising Productions LLC, a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, and a professional consumer advocate and independent citizen journalist based in St. Louis, Missouri. He has written extensively on the intersection of civil procedure, free expression, and accountability in the legal profession. This analysis draws on primary legislative materials, the Uniform Law Commission’s UPEPA framework, and direct experience in Missouri courts.

Primary sources include Missouri Senate Bills 835 and 1067 (2026), the enrolled versions signed July 13, 2026, and the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act model framework. 

For canonical and academic treatises on the subject(s) of tort law, personal injury, consumer advocacy etc. by Albert B. Pepper Jr. visit the following web domain, web site url's.

Academia Edu: https://independent.academia.edu/jonesbing 

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/959069180/Albert-B-Pepper-Jr

Medium: https://medium.com/@litigant.pro.se.advocate 

Substack: https://litigantproseadvocate.substack.com/