Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb339 Vaccine Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florida panel advances bill letting residents sue vaccine makers over in-state advertising
Summary
The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee on Feb. 12 approved HB 339 as amended, a bill by Rep. Miller that would let Floridians sue vaccine manufacturers tied to in-state advertising; supporters say it restores trust and remedies harms, while opponents cite federal preemption, constitutional and policy concerns. The measure was reported favorably 12-4.
Representative Erin Miller introduced HB 339 to the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee on Feb. 12 as a bid to "restore trust" in vaccines by creating a route for Floridians harmed by vaccines to seek compensation when manufacturers advertise in the state. "If they choose to advertise their products in Florida, to stand by those products," Miller told the committee, explaining the bill is modeled on a Texas law passed last year.
The measure would let plaintiffs bring civil claims tied to manufacturer advertising in Florida; Miller said the goal is not to blame vaccines but to ensure manufacturers who market here "stand by" their products and that consumers have an adequate remedy. She described recent local outbreaks — including a reported measles resurgence — and criticized federal compensation programs as slow and often inadequate.
Opponents, including William Large of the Florida Justice Reform Institute and Patricia Campbell Smith, a retired federal judge who served as chief special master for the federal vaccine program, told the committee the bill risks legal problems. Large argued HB 339 is preempted by federal vaccine-compensation statutes, said it targets commercial speech and criticized strict-liability and fee-shifting provisions. Patricia Campbell Smith, testifying on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), described features of the federal vaccine-claim venue that she said provide recovery and procedural protections and noted claimants often retain attorneys’ fees and can pursue other courts only under defined conditions.
Members pressed the sponsor on several legal and policy questions. Ranking Member Rhett Raynor and other members asked what standard of proof courts would use to link advertising to injury and whether the bill would require reliance or falsity as elements; Miller repeatedly said proof standards would be a matter for the courts and that she was open to amendments to refine causation and reliance language. Members also raised federal preemption, whether the bill created a litigation magnet through one-way fee shifting for claimants, and whether the bill effectively imposed strict liability based merely on advertising in Florida.
Miller offered and explained an amendment to delay the bill’s effective date by three months; the committee adopted that amendment by voice vote. Dozens of individuals and groups filed in either support or opposition. On the record, the committee reported HB 339 favorably as amended by a vote of 12 yeas and 4 nays.
What’s next: With the subcommittee’s favorable report, the measure proceeds through the House process for further committee consideration and potential floor action where sponsors and opponents may seek additional changes.
Sources: Floor debate and public testimony before the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee on Feb. 12. Vote recorded by roll call: 12 yeas, 4 nays.
