Civil Actions - Immunity - Disclosure of Allegations of Sexually Assaultive Behavior (Stop Silencing Survivors Act)
Summary
SB 549, the Stop Silencing Survivors Act, creates a 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 may not be held liable for it if they acted in good faith, and the bill creates a presumption of good faith unless clear and convincing evidence shows actual malice or that the person intentionally or recklessly disclosed false information. The bill also defines “sexually assaultive behavior” by cross-reference to existing Maryland law and related federal, out-of-state, and foreign offenses.
The bill further requires a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a person who successfully defends against a claim that they lacked good faith in making the disclosure, unless the court finds such an award would be clearly inappropriate. The measure is intended to protect survivors and others who share allegations of sexual misconduct from retaliatory civil claims, while still allowing liability where disclosures are made maliciously or with false information.
Impact
SB 549 would add a new immunity provision to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and would affect civil liability claims arising from disclosures of allegations of sexual assault or related conduct. It would also incorporate the existing statutory definition of “sexually assaultive behavior” from § 10-923, tying the new immunity to a defined set of sexual offenses under Maryland, federal, and comparable out-of-state or foreign law. In practice, the bill would give stronger legal protection to survivors, advocates, and other good-faith speakers, and it would shift some litigation risk to plaintiffs who bring claims challenging those disclosures.
Sentiment
The bill’s title and structure indicate a strongly supportive posture toward survivors and people who report or discuss allegations of sexual assault. Even without recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears designed to address concerns about silencing or retaliatory lawsuits, and its good-faith standard suggests an effort to balance survivor protection with safeguards against knowingly false or malicious statements. Overall, the available context points to a pro-survivor, anti-retaliation policy goal.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting survivors’ disclosures and preserving remedies for people who are falsely accused. Supporters would emphasize the need to prevent intimidation, defamation threats, and other civil claims from chilling reports of sexual misconduct. Opponents or skeptics may focus on the risk that the immunity could be used too broadly, potentially limiting recourse for individuals harmed by false or reckless accusations. The bill addresses that concern by excluding disclosures made with actual malice or with intentional or reckless falsehoods, and by allowing fee awards to prevailing defendants unless clearly inappropriate.