Georgia House Bill HB911

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/25

Caption

Torts; prohibit individuals from bringing defamation actions against another individual who makes a communication regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination; provisions

Summary

HB 911 would amend Georgia’s libel and slander laws to create a protection against defamation suits for people who make communications about an incident of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or sex discrimination. The protection applies when the speaker does not act with malice and, at the time of the communication, has a reasonable belief that the incident occurred. The bill also provides that a defendant who prevails in a lawsuit filed in violation of this new rule may recover reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. In effect, the measure is designed to discourage defamation claims against individuals who report or discuss alleged misconduct in good faith, while preserving liability where the communication is made with malice or without a reasonable belief in the underlying allegation.

Impact

If enacted, HB 911 would add a new Code section to Chapter 5 of Title 51 of the Georgia Code, narrowing the circumstances under which defamation actions may be brought for statements about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or sex discrimination. It would create a statutory defense for certain communications and shift litigation risk by allowing prevailing defendants to recover fees and costs, which could deter lawsuits and encourage reporting or discussion of alleged misconduct.

Sentiment

The available record does not include committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, anti-retaliation reform intended to support good-faith reporting of sexual misconduct and discrimination allegations.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting people who speak out about alleged sexual misconduct and preserving the ability of individuals to sue for defamatory false statements. Supporters would likely emphasize the reasonable-belief and no-malice limits as safeguards, while opponents may worry that the bill could make it harder to pursue defamation claims even when accusations are inaccurate or damaging. The fee-shifting provision could also be controversial because it increases the financial consequences for plaintiffs who file unsuccessful suits.