Bill shields businesses from COVID negligence suits in federal court

What it does

This bill requires federal courts to instruct juries in COVID-19 negligence cases that merely opening a business is reasonable as a matter of law and cannot, by itself, constitute negligence. It shields businesses from liability for COVID transmission even when plaintiffs argue the business failed to take reasonable precautions (masking, distancing, ventilation, etc.). The bill benefits businesses by raising the bar for proving negligence; it costs individuals who contracted COVID through workplace or commercial exposure by narrowing their legal remedies.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a legal immunity device: it removes negligence liability for COVID transmission by declaring business operation itself reasonable as a matter of law. This is a narrow carve-out from standard tort law, not a procedural clarification.

What the text implies

• The instruction applies only to federal court, leaving state-court COVID negligence claims unaffected — but federal diversity jurisdiction covers many interstate commercial disputes, so the shield covers a significant portion of business-to-consumer COVID claims.
• The phrase 'by itself' in subsection (4) may create ambiguity: does it permit negligence findings if opening the business is combined with other conduct (e.g., opening + refusing to allow masks)? Courts will likely read it narrowly to protect businesses.
• The bill does not address gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct — only negligence — but the 'reasonable person' instruction in subsection (2) combined with the 'opening is reasonable' rule in (3) may effectively shield even careless conduct.
• No exception for healthcare facilities, congregate settings, or high-transmission environments where COVID risk is foreseeable and heightened — the shield applies uniformly.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Individuals harmed by COVID transmission in commercial settings lose the ability to pursue negligence claims against businesses, even when the business failed to take reasonable precautions. The bill shifts the burden entirely to the injured party and away from the business, narrowing a traditional legal remedy without replacing it with an alternative.

Who stands to gain

• retail and hospitality businesses
• restaurants and bars
• gyms and fitness facilities
• office landlords and commercial real estate
• employers generally

Named in the bill

Federal courts, Juries, Businesses (unnamed), COVID-19

Where it stands

• Jan 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $5,160,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 104 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Andy Biggs, the sponsor, reported $9,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• Aicpa Association of International Certified Professional Accountants — $1,550,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.