HB3311, titled the Protect Survivors Reporting Act, would add a new Article XXIV to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure focused on civil claims arising from reports of gender-based violence. The bill states a public policy goal of protecting survivors from being silenced through retaliatory lawsuits and defines gender-based violence broadly to include domestic abuse, dating violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and stalking, as well as disclosures made to authorities, employers, schools, media, public forums, or other persons.
The core mechanism is a special motion to dispose of civil claims that are based on, relate to, or are in response to a person’s reporting of gender-based violence. If the court finds the challenged claim is tied to such reporting, it must dismiss the claim unless the responding party proves by clear and convincing evidence that the report was made with actual malice. The bill also suspends discovery while the motion is pending, requires expedited hearings and appeals, and authorizes attorney’s fees and other remedies, including injunctive relief and, in some circumstances, treble and punitive damages.
In practical terms, the bill would create a strong procedural shield for people who report gender-based violence, especially in defamation, slander, libel, harassment, and similar retaliatory suits. It would shift litigation burdens toward early dismissal and limit the ability of plaintiffs to use discovery as leverage against survivors. The bill also preserves other legal rights and directs courts to construe the article liberally to carry out its purpose.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of survivors and reporting, with the legislature’s stated concern being that fear of retaliation suppresses reporting and allows abuse to continue unchecked. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded debate or voting history to indicate broader legislative sentiment or opposition. Based on the text alone, the main policy emphasis is survivor protection and deterrence of retaliatory civil litigation.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the breadth of the protected activity, the low threshold for triggering dismissal, and the actual malice standard, which may be viewed by critics as limiting access to the courts for people who believe they were falsely accused. The bill’s fee-shifting, treble damages, punitive damages, and expedited procedures could also be controversial because they substantially increase the stakes for civil plaintiffs and defendants alike.
HB3311 would amend the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure by creating a new Article XXIV governing civil claims connected to reports of gender-based violence. It would require courts to dismiss covered claims unless the responding party proves actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, suspend discovery during the motion process, accelerate hearings and appeals, and authorize attorney’s fees, costs, injunctive relief, treble damages, and punitive damages in specified circumstances. The bill would therefore create a specialized anti-retaliation procedure affecting defamation and related civil actions involving survivors and alleged perpetrators of gender-based violence.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure reflect strong support for survivors of gender-based violence and for protecting the act of reporting from retaliatory civil litigation. The text frames reporting as a constitutional right and presents the measure as a response to chilling effects caused by threats of lawsuits. No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded evidence of formal opposition or bipartisan support in the available materials.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill is too broad in covering any claim related to reporting gender-based violence, whether the actual malice standard is too favorable to defendants who report abuse, and whether the mandatory dismissal and discovery stay could unfairly burden plaintiffs with legitimate claims. The bill’s fee-shifting and enhanced damages provisions may also draw concern from parties who fear misuse of the statute or reduced access to remedies for allegedly false or harmful accusations.