Cause of action for harmful conversion therapy practices provided.
HF4468 creates a new civil cause of action for people who were harmed by conversion therapy before age 18. The bill defines conversion therapy by reference to existing Minnesota law and allows a person injured as a minor, or in some cases a parent or guardian acting on the minor’s behalf, to sue a mental health professional who administered the practice. The bill expressly includes psychological harm such as depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideation or attempts, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loss of self-esteem as actionable injury.
If a plaintiff prevails, a court may award injunctive relief to stop future conduct, a civil penalty of at least $50,000, general, special, and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. The bill also allows suit in the county where either the plaintiff or defendant resides and bars state or local government officers or employees from bringing or participating in enforcement actions under this section.
The bill would add a new section to Minnesota Statutes chapter 604, expanding civil liability for mental health professionals who engage in conversion therapy on minors. It would not create a criminal penalty, but it would give affected individuals and, in some cases, parents or guardians a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief. The measure would likely affect licensed mental health providers, counselors, psychologists, social workers, physicians, and other professionals authorized to provide mental health care, while reinforcing existing state policy against conversion therapy for minors.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a youth-protection and consumer-safety bill, with support implied by its authorship and referral but no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The overall tone of the bill is protective and remedial, focusing on harms experienced by minors and providing civil remedies rather than government enforcement. Because no transcripts or vote history are included, there is no documented public sentiment in the record provided beyond the bill’s clear intent to prohibit and deter harmful conversion therapy practices.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the bill’s creation of a private right of action, the minimum civil penalty of $50,000, and the availability of punitive damages and attorney fees, all of which could be viewed by opponents as exposing mental health professionals to significant litigation risk. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s reliance on psychological harm as a compensable injury and its application to conduct that occurred before age 18, which may raise questions about proof, causation, and retrospective liability. Supporters would likely emphasize the protection of minors from harmful therapeutic practices and the availability of remedies for lasting mental health injuries.