New York Jets Star Cornerback Ahmad “Sauce” Gardner (“Gardner”) engaged in a back-and-forth exchange with a Buffalo Bills fan (the “Fan”) on X (formerly Twitter) prompting a civil suit for defamation and emotional distress against Gardner. The dispute arose after Gardner posted a picture of boxes, a ladder, and construction equipment for a golf simulator, with the caption, “Do I even have to say what I’m getting built at my new house?” The Fan responded to the tweet saying, “A simulator to teach you how not to commit pass interference or defensive holding.” Gardner then replied to this tweet allegedly suggesting that the Fan had messaged him the link to her OnlyFans, an adult content website. The Fan responded by denying that she had an OnlyFans page, or that such a message had been sent.

The Fan then sued Gardner for defamation and emotional distress in Morris County, New Jersey, alleging that Gardner’s remarks were defamatory. Gardner filed an anti-SLAPP motion under New Jersey law seeking dismissal of the Complaint on the grounds that: (1) the Fan’s claims failed as a matter of law; and (2) Gardner’s speech fell within the scope of New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Court agreed with Gardner and dismissed the Fan’s claims, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ruling Gardner’s post constituted protected free speech under the First Amendment. The Court then ordered the Fan to pay $51,636 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and anti-SLAPP statutes are aimed at deterring meritless lawsuits filed to intimidate or silence free speech on matters of public concern. New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute, like many other jurisdictions, is based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”) and permits a discretionary award of attorneys’ fees to a party who pursues an anti-SLAPP motion against a defamation plaintiff and prevails. Currently, 38 states and the District of Columbia have some form of anti-SLAPP law.

This case underscores the utility of a timely anti-SLAPP motion—and those facing a defamation claim should act quickly to determine whether an anti-SLAPP motion is viable in their jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions require that anti-SLAPP motions be filed within sixty (60) days to ensure timely and early dismissal. At the same time, those who might want to pursue an anti-SLAPP motion should investigate the risks of doing so in their particular jurisdiction, as some jurisdictions—including New Jersey—authorize an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to the moving party or the responding party if the responding party prevails. See N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-58. Further, in New Jersey, an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is not conditioned on a court-initiated dismissal of a SLAPP suit. Therefore, if a plaintiff pursues a defamation claim, but decides later to dismiss their claim strategically to avoid application of the anti-SLAPP statute, a plaintiff still may be liable for fees under New Jersey law. See Satz v. Starr, 482 N.J. Super. 55, 63-64 (N.J. App. Div. 2025). Litigants should be mindful of these risks and consult an experienced defamation attorney before pursuing a defamation claim or raising an anti-SLAPP defense.

This case also highlights the perils of social media, and the risks users face when interacting with others online. On one hand, it serves as a cautionary tale that what is perceived as actionable defamation may not be actionable at all and might be met with a successful anti-SLAPP motion–a potentially expensive result for the unsuspecting plaintiff. On the other hand, it serves as a reminder that social media can be a breeding ground for defamatory rhetoric capable of reaching a wide audience in seconds. Users should be cautious when blurring the line between fact and fiction and be mindful of potential unintended outcomes of their social media use. It can have real life consequences!

This post is authored by Samuel R. Finkel and Alberto M. Longo. Samuel is an attorney in Fox Rothschild’s Entertainment and Sports Department. Alberto is an attorney in the Firm’s Media & Defamation practice group. For more information about this case or the interplay between sports and the law, please contact Sam at sfinkel@foxrothschild.com, Alberto at alongo@foxrothschild.com, or others in our Entertainment and Sports Department.