Pennsylvania House Bill HB1771

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 8/4/25
• Refer: 8/4/25

Caption

In particular rights and immunities, further providing for definitions, for pretrial motion and for awards.

Summary

HB1771 amends Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP-style protections in Title 42, which govern immunity for protected public expression. The bill adds a new definition of “operating costs” to mean the increased insurance premium for a policy used to cover attorney fees, court costs, or other litigation expenses. It also updates the procedures for pretrial motions and awards when a lawsuit is brought based on protected public expression. Under the bill, a party who successfully asserts protected public expression immunity, or whose opponent voluntarily discontinues the case, may recover not only attorney fees, court costs, and litigation expenses, but also damages for present or future operating costs caused by the lawsuit. The measure makes those awards jointly and severally recoverable against each adverse party that brought the claim. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

The bill would expand the remedies available under Pennsylvania’s existing protected public expression immunity provisions in 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8340.13, 8340.16, and 8340.18. In practical terms, it broadens the financial consequences for plaintiffs who file claims that are later dismissed or defeated under the immunity framework by allowing recovery of increased insurance premiums tied to defending such suits. The change would affect litigants, courts handling pretrial immunity motions, and parties covered by liability or defense-cost insurance policies.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a targeted, pro-defendant procedural and fee-shifting expansion with no documented opposition or support in the available record. The sponsors suggest an intent to strengthen protections for speakers and defendants facing meritless litigation. Because no transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent policy direction.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the new ability to recover “operating costs,” especially future insurance premium increases, in addition to attorney fees and litigation costs. Supporters would likely view this as a necessary deterrent against abusive lawsuits targeting protected speech, while opponents could argue it expands liability too far, creates uncertainty by allowing future damages, and may chill legitimate claims. Another possible issue is the joint-and-several structure of the award, which can increase exposure for multiple plaintiffs or parties who join the action.