Federal Judge Denies Anti-SLAPP Protection for Foreign Speech in Lufthansa Case

Judge Illston rules anti-SLAPP statutes don't apply to foreign speech by non-U.S. persons.

In a notable ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied the application of California's anti-SLAPP statute to a case involving foreign speech by non-U.S. persons. The case arose after a Lufthansa employee, Jamshed, publicly disclosed the marital status of John Doe and Robert Roe, a same-sex couple married in California in 2013, during check-in at Riyadh airport in 2021. This information was allegedly also conveyed to Saudi authorities.

Doe and Roe filed suit against Deutsche Lufthansa AG, alleging disclosure of private facts and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lufthansa argued that Jamshed's statements were protected under anti-SLAPP laws, which safeguard speech made in public forums concerning public interest matters.

Judge Illston ruled in August 2026 that the anti-SLAPP statute does not extend to speech made abroad by non-U.S. persons. She referenced Lufthansa's contention that the speech qualified for protection as made "in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest." Nevertheless, the court found these protections inapplicable due to the foreign context of the speech.

This decision underscores clear jurisdictional boundaries of anti-SLAPP laws and highlights challenges in applying U.S. free speech protections to international contexts. Legal professionals handling cross-border defamation and privacy cases must consider these limitations when advising global clients.

For more on the ruling, see the detailed analysis at Reason's Volokh Conspiracy.