TORT ACTIONS FOR LIBEL & SLANDER
HB333 would amend New Mexico’s single-publication tort statute governing libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and related claims. The bill keeps the existing rule that a person generally has only one cause of action for damages arising from a single publication, exhibition, or utterance, and that recovery must include all damages from that tort across jurisdictions.
The new provision would allow a prevailing defendant to recover damages, treble damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs from a plaintiff if the lawsuit was based on a statement or publication that was made without malice, was factually true, and concerned an incident of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or an unlawful discriminatory practice experienced by the defendant. In effect, the bill creates a fee-and-damages-shifting remedy for defendants who are sued over truthful, nonmalicious disclosures about certain misconduct.
HB333 would amend Section 41-7-1 NMSA 1978, expanding the remedies available in certain defamation and privacy-related cases. It would add a new defendant-side recovery mechanism in actions arising from a single publication or utterance when the underlying statement is truthful, nonmalicious, and relates to sexual assault, sexual harassment, or unlawful discrimination. The bill could affect plaintiffs considering claims against individuals who speak publicly about their own experiences with harassment or discrimination, and it would expose unsuccessful plaintiffs to potentially significant financial liability, including treble damages and attorney fees.
The bill’s framing suggests a protective, pro-survivor and anti-retaliation policy goal, aimed at encouraging truthful reporting of sexual misconduct and discrimination without fear of civil liability. With no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears intended to be remedial and deterrent in favor of defendants who are speaking about their own experiences.
The likely point of contention is the bill’s fee-shifting and treble-damages provision, which could be viewed as a strong deterrent against meritless defamation or privacy suits but also as a potentially chilling penalty for plaintiffs who bring claims in good faith. Supporters would likely emphasize protection for victims and survivors of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and discriminatory practices, while critics may argue that the bill could discourage legitimate reputational claims or broaden liability too aggressively. Another possible issue is the bill’s application to statements that are “factually true” and “without malice,” which may still require factual litigation over truth, intent, and whether the underlying incident fits the covered categories.