Bill to curb retaliatory defamation suits in sexual‑assault and domestic‑violence cases retained for further work after committee debate

Concord — The House Judiciary Committee scrutinized HB 580, a bill intended to protect people who report sexual assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence from retaliatory defamation lawsuits, hearing lengthy testimony from the bill’s sponsors, victims’ advocates and attorneys who urged caution on the wording.

Representative Anita Burrows, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure aims to stop the tactic of filing costly defamation suits to intimidate people who report misconduct. “This is a bill that seeks to prevent retaliatory defamation for individuals who are reporting misconduct, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or domestic violence,” Burrows said. She described two key protections: allowing good‑faith statements to be shielded from defamation claims and preserving the right of the accused to defend their name, provided statements are made without malice.

The bill drew broad support from victim‑services advocates. Pamela Kailig of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said HB 580 would reduce “a chilling effect” on survivors who fear meritorious criminal or civil claims will be followed by costly defamation litigation. “Retaliatory defamation lawsuits create a chilling effect, silencing the victim in a particular case, but potentially discouraging other victims from coming forward as well,” Kailig testified. She urged passage, calling the bill a public‑safety measure because silenced survivors may leave alleged perpetrators free to harm others.

Civil‑litigation attorneys raised definitional and procedural concerns. Marissa Chase of the New Hampshire Association for Justice said her members respected the bill’s intent but raised drafting questions about definitions, the use of punitive damages language and the evidentiary standards proposed. “I don’t think this bill quite fits that yet,” Chase said, and offered her association’s willingness to work on revisions.

A central point of debate concerned the bill’s rebuttable presumption that a person reporting an alleged assault has acted in good faith and the varying burdens of proof for different claims. Representative Birch argued that the bill, as drafted with a presumption of good faith and language referencing “clear and convincing evidence” in certain places, could skew procedural balance between accusers and those accused. Committee members questioned whether the bill set an appropriate standard for counterclaims and how to protect against frivolous use of the presumption.

Committee action

After extended discussion, members decided not to adopt a final recommendation. In the committee’s later executive session the committee voted to retain HB 580 so a subcommittee or caucus work could continue on language addressing evidentiary standards and definitions. The executive‑session roll call for retain was 18 yes, 0 no.

Why it matters

HB 580 aims to reduce litigation used as a tactic to silence victims of abuse by raising the cost of speaking out. Proponents say it will protect survivors who lack the resources to defend against expensive defamation suits. Opponents caution that drafting choices — particularly presumptions of good faith and the civil proof standards applied to counterclaims — could create unfair legal asymmetries, and they urged careful redrafting.

What’s next

The committee retained the measure for further work; sponsors and stakeholders said they would continue negotiations on definitions, proof standards and the balance between protecting victims and preserving defendants’ rights.