Civil Actions - Immunity - Disclosure of Allegations of Sexually Assaultive Behavior (Stop Silencing Survivors Act)
HB 465, 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 may not be held liable for it if they acted in good faith. The bill also creates a presumption of good faith unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the person acted with actual malice or knowingly/recklessly disclosed false information.
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 did not act in good faith, unless the party seeking fees shows that such an award would be clearly inappropriate. It defines “sexually assaultive behavior” by cross-reference to existing Maryland law and related federal, out-of-state, and foreign offenses that are equivalent to specified sexual crimes, sexual abuse of a minor, sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult, or federal sex offenses.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and would expand protections for survivors and others who share allegations of sexual assault or related misconduct. It would also create a potential fee-shifting mechanism that could deter lawsuits aimed at punishing or silencing disclosures made in good faith. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
The available context shows the bill was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee and had a hearing, but no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided. Based on the bill’s title and structure, the overall sentiment appears supportive of survivor protections and anti-retaliation measures. The main point of contention likely concerns balancing those protections against the risk of false accusations or malicious disclosures, which the bill addresses through its malice and false-information exceptions.
HB 465 would add new civil immunity protections to the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article for disclosures about allegations of sexually assaultive behavior, and it would require courts to award attorney’s fees and costs in certain unsuccessful challenges to a disclosure’s good-faith basis. It would not change the underlying criminal definitions of sexual offenses, but it incorporates those definitions by reference in § 10-923 and extends the scope to equivalent offenses under federal, other state, and foreign law. The bill primarily affects civil liability, defamation-type claims, and litigation risk for survivors, advocates, and others who share allegations.
The bill’s framing and title indicate a generally pro-survivor, anti-silencing policy goal, and the available context does not show organized opposition or recorded vote splits. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes included, sentiment can only be inferred from the bill text itself: it appears intended to protect people who report or repeat allegations of sexual misconduct in good faith. The inclusion of exceptions for actual malice and false statements suggests an effort to reassure critics that the bill is not meant to shield knowingly false accusations.
The likely point of contention is the scope of immunity for disclosures about allegations of sexually assaultive behavior. Supporters are likely to emphasize protecting survivors, witnesses, and advocates from civil lawsuits that could chill reporting or public discussion, while critics may worry that the presumption of good faith and fee-shifting provisions could make it harder to pursue claims arising from false or reckless accusations. The bill attempts to address that concern by allowing liability where actual malice is shown or where false information was intentionally or recklessly disclosed, but the practical application of those standards could still be disputed.