SNS Has Become the Main Battlefield for SLAPP Lawsuits
Ugaya:
Recently, there has been an explosive increase in SLAPP lawsuits in Japan.
One major factor is the widespread use of smartphones and the growing popularity of social media platforms.
Defamation lawsuits based on abusive language posted on social media are increasing.
A recent example is the Himasora Akane case.
The women's support group Colabo and its representative, Yumeno Nito, sued Himasora Akane, alleging that posts made on the blog platform note constituted defamation, and the court ruled in favor of Colabo.
Strictly speaking, Colabo’s lawsuit would be classified as a "SLAPP lawsuit" according to the original definition.
However, since Himasora Akane’s posts were of such poor quality and lacked any basis in truth, I believe that, had this been an American court, the judge would have proceeded to trial without classifying it as a SLAPP.
Another factor is the steady increase in the number of lawyers in Japan.
Many of them have no steady work; rookie lawyers now earn around 3 million yen (approximately $20,000) a year.
Takayama:
That’s not enough to live on.
Ugaya:
Exactly.
So even if they know it's a SLAPP lawsuit, some lawyers still encourage clients to file suits.
Most of the abusive language cases online are minor.
However, once a lawsuit is filed, lawyers can collect retainers and success fees, providing them with income.
According to Supreme Court statistics, the number of "damages" cases is steadily rising.
Takayama:
Mainly handled in summary courts?
Ugaya:
In Japan, they prefer to bring cases to district courts whenever possible.
Many lawyers deliberately set the claimed amount above 1.4 million yen to bypass the lower court.
Takayama:
There are about 1.33 million lawyers in the United States, while Japan has about 45,000.
That's a 30-fold difference, and yet we already have an oversupply.
Japan doesn’t have a deep-rooted litigation culture to begin with.
You could say things haven't changed much since Thunberg’s time.
Bringing American-style litigation into that environment is only going to cause greater societal confusion.
Ugaya:
Even just the increase in law school graduates has already opened Pandora’s box.
It’s now beyond control.
When I wrote What is a SLAPP Lawsuit? (2015), most of the battles were still fought through analog media—
mainly newspapers, magazines, and TV.
At best, blogs were the only online battlegrounds.
But today, virtually every citizen owns a smartphone and uses social media.
Now, social media has become the main arena for SLAPP lawsuits.
If you casually criticize someone online, you could easily find yourself sued for defamation.
And most Japanese people are still completely unaware of that risk.
Takayama:
It’s not impossible for someone to suddenly receive a special delivery notice from the Tokyo District Court demanding 300 million yen.
Ugaya:
Exactly.
Every single Japanese citizen must understand: anyone can become the target of a SLAPP lawsuit today.
Most people still lack basic social media literacy.
It's similar to what happened when cars became widespread in the 1960s—
traffic accidents surged because laws and public awareness hadn’t caught up.
Later, strict measures like drunk driving penalties and mandatory seatbelts helped bring fatalities down.
But with social media, there are still few laws or established rules.
It’s like driving on a highway at full speed without a license—of course people are going to get hurt.
Takayama:
People like me, who are used to writing professionally, can at least judge whether something is appropriate to publish.
Plus, what we write gets checked by a desk editor or editor-in-chief before going to print.
Yet even so, sometimes we still get sued.
The average person doesn’t have that experience or those safety checks.
And yet they post whatever they want on social media.
Ugaya:
The spread of new technologies has outpaced people’s risk awareness and the legal framework.
Takayama:
Starting April 1, Japan enacted the "Information Distribution Platform Regulation Law,"
which requires major social media companies to swiftly remove inappropriate posts upon request and to publicly disclose their removal standards.
I wonder how that will play out.
Ugaya:
That law places obligations on companies.
But at the citizen level, media literacy remains extremely low.
Don’t Take Away Their Livelihoods
Takayama:
We also need to think about countermeasures.
Earlier, you mentioned that "America has anti-SLAPP laws."
Could you explain them in more detail?
Ugaya:
California’s anti-SLAPP law served as the model for the entire United States.
When a civil suit is filed, the judge first determines whether the lawsuit is aimed at suppressing free speech.
If the judge finds that it is a SLAPP, the case is dismissed right away.
Takayama:
So it’s like a preliminary review of civil claims.
Ugaya:
Exactly.
Even in cases of defamation or business interference, if the judge finds that a proper trial is needed, the case proceeds normally.
Some people misunderstand and think "SLAPP lawsuits are banned in the U.S.,"
but that’s completely false.
Takayama:
The judge seems to have a lot of discretionary power.
Ugaya:
Yes.
There is no article in the California Code of Civil Procedure that formally defines "what constitutes a SLAPP."
It’s entirely up to the judge’s discretion, based on accumulated case law and precedent.
Takayama:
Are there any Japanese lawmakers or lawyers who truly understand America’s anti-SLAPP laws?
Ugaya:
Very few, as I mentioned earlier.
I once proposed to the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ Human Rights Committee that Japan should legislate a similar law.
But they showed no interest.
Their attitude was:
"In Japan, everyone has the right to file a civil lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Code.
We cannot infringe on that right just because it's labeled a 'SLAPP lawsuit.'"
Takayama:
Such a low level of awareness.
Ugaya:
I was once invited to speak at a seminar hosted by the Daini Tokyo Bar Association’s "Spiritual Sales Countermeasures Committee."
When I explained anti-SLAPP laws, one lawyer criticized me, saying,
"If we had such laws, we’d lose a means of attacking the other side."
Eventually, all the lawyers present got angry and ganged up on me (laughs).
Takayama:
In short, they were saying, "Don't take away our livelihood."
This article continues.
