Civil Actions - Immunity - Disclosure of Allegations of Sexually Assaultive Behavior (Stop Silencing Survivors Act)
Summary
HB629, the Stop Silencing Survivors Act, creates a new civil immunity rule for people who, in good faith, disclose information about allegations of sexually assaultive behavior to another person. Under the bill, a person making such a disclosure is presumed to have acted in good faith unless clear and convincing evidence shows actual malice toward the accused or that the person intentionally or recklessly shared false information. The bill is aimed at protecting survivors and others who speak about sexual misconduct from being sued simply for making the disclosure.
The bill also requires courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a person who successfully defends against a claim that they did not act in good faith, unless the opposing party shows that such an award would be clearly inappropriate. The definition of “sexually assaultive behavior” is tied to existing Maryland law in Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-923 and includes sexual crimes under the Criminal Law Article, sexual abuse of a minor, sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult, certain federal sex offenses, and comparable offenses from other jurisdictions. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB629 would add a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article establishing a statutory defense and fee-shifting protection for disclosures about allegations of sexually assaultive behavior. It would not change the underlying criminal definitions of sexual offenses, but it would affect civil liability by limiting lawsuits based on good-faith disclosures and by creating a presumption in favor of the speaker. The bill would also reinforce the existing statutory definition of “sexually assaultive behavior” by cross-referencing § 10-923 and related criminal provisions, thereby shaping how courts evaluate claims involving alleged sexual misconduct disclosures.
Sentiment
The bill’s title and structure suggest strong support for survivors and advocates who want to reduce legal retaliation against people who report or discuss sexual assault allegations. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to be protective and remedial rather than punitive, with a clear emphasis on encouraging good-faith disclosure.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting survivors and preserving remedies for people who believe they have been falsely accused or defamed. Supporters would favor the presumption of good faith and the attorney’s fee provision as safeguards against chilling speech, while opponents may argue that the bill could make it harder to bring civil claims when disclosures are malicious or knowingly false. The bill addresses that concern by allowing liability where actual malice or reckless/intentional falsity is proven, but the standard is high, which may itself be a source of disagreement.