Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025

HR 99, the "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025." A bill that finally acknowledges the crippling inefficiencies of our litigious society and takes a step towards shielding businesses from frivolous lawsuits.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to limit the liability of businesses in cases where customers or employees contract COVID-19 on their premises. By introducing a specific jury instruction, the bill aims to establish a more reasonable standard for determining negligence and shift the burden of proof away from businesses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces four key provisions:

1. The "reasonable person" standard is established as the liability benchmark. 2. A business's decision to remain open during the pandemic is deemed reasonable as a matter of law. 3. Negligence cannot be solely attributed to a business for staying open. 4. A specific jury instruction is mandated in federal civil actions involving COVID-19-related negligence claims.

These provisions effectively create a safe harbor for businesses, protecting them from frivolous lawsuits and excessive liability.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are businesses, particularly those in the retail, hospitality, and healthcare sectors. By limiting their exposure to COVID-19-related lawsuits, these companies can focus on growth and innovation rather than wasting resources on defensive litigation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for the business community. By reducing the risk of frivolous lawsuits, companies will be more likely to invest in new ventures, create jobs, and drive economic growth. According to my think tank's projections, this bill could lead to an estimated $10 billion increase in GDP over the next five years.

Furthermore, by establishing a more reasonable standard for negligence, this bill sends a strong signal that our society values entrepreneurship and innovation over frivolous litigation. It's a step towards creating a more business-friendly environment, where companies can thrive without being held back by excessive regulation and lawsuits.

In conclusion, HR 99 is a crucial piece of legislation that recognizes the importance of protecting businesses from frivolous lawsuits. By limiting liability and promoting a more reasonable standard for negligence, this bill will have a profound impact on our economy and pave the way for future growth and innovation.

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 99, is titled the "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025". Remember when we learned about how bills are introduced and referred to committees? Yeah, this one was introduced by Mr. Biggs of Arizona and sent to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Now, let's get to the main purpose and objectives of this bill. As you should have learned in middle school, a bill typically has a clear goal or objective. In this case, the bill aims to protect businesses from what it deems "frivolous" lawsuits related to COVID-19 transmission. The bill's supporters likely want to shield businesses from liability for allegedly failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The key provisions and changes to existing law are outlined in Section 2 of the bill. As we covered in civics class, a bill often amends or adds new language to existing laws. Here, the bill proposes to require a specific jury instruction in federal civil actions that involve claims for damages based on negligence related to COVID-19 transmission. The instruction would inform jurors about the liability standard and what constitutes negligence.

Affected parties and stakeholders include businesses, particularly those that remained open during the pandemic, as well as individuals who may have contracted COVID-19 due to alleged negligence by these businesses. As we learned in civics class, laws often impact different groups in various ways.

Now, let's talk about potential impact and implications. If this bill becomes a law, it could significantly limit the ability of individuals to sue businesses for allegedly failing to prevent COVID-19 transmission. This might lead to fewer lawsuits, but it also raises concerns about accountability and public health. Remember when we learned about checks and balances? Well, this bill could be seen as an example of how one branch of government (Congress) is trying to influence the judicial branch's handling of certain cases.

In theory, our system of government is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated before being enacted. However, in practice, bills like HR 99 can sometimes sail through Congress with little scrutiny or opposition. As I taught you in civics class, it's essential for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the legislative process to hold their elected representatives accountable.

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and let me decode the real meaning behind HR 99, the so-called "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025". On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent attempt to shield businesses from frivolous lawsuits related to COVID-19 transmission. But, my friends, do not be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 99 is to protect businesses from "frivolous" lawsuits by establishing a specific jury instruction in federal civil actions related to COVID-19 negligence claims. But what's really at play here? I believe this bill is designed to immunize corporations and government entities from accountability for their role in spreading the virus.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces four key provisions:

1. The "reasonable person standard" becomes the liability benchmark, which sounds innocuous but actually sets a very low bar for corporate responsibility. 2. A business's decision to remain open during the pandemic is deemed "reasonable as a matter of law", effectively granting them blanket immunity from negligence claims. 3. The bill prohibits juries from finding negligence solely based on a business being open during the pandemic.

These provisions, my friends, are not about protecting small businesses or entrepreneurs; they're about shielding Big Pharma, corporate giants, and government agencies from accountability for their actions (or inactions) during the pandemic.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's language is carefully crafted to benefit large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and government entities. Meanwhile, individuals who suffered harm or loss due to COVID-19 transmission will find it increasingly difficult to seek justice.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our society:

1. It undermines the concept of corporate accountability, allowing businesses to prioritize profits over public health. 2. By granting immunity to corporations and government entities, HR 99 sets a chilling precedent for future pandemics or public health crises. 3. The bill's language may also be used to justify similar legislation in other areas, such as environmental disasters or product liability cases.

In conclusion, my fellow patriots, do not be swayed by the bill's innocuous title. HR 99 is a Trojan horse designed to protect the interests of the powerful at the expense of the people. Wake up, sheeple!

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 99, the "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025" – can you feel the freedom in that title? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about shielding businesses from those pesky lawsuits that might arise when they, you know, negligently spread COVID-19 to their customers or employees. I mean, who needs accountability when it comes to public health, right? The main objective here is to make it harder for people to sue businesses for damages related to COVID transmission.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires a specific jury instruction in federal civil cases involving negligence claims related to COVID-19. It's all about setting the bar high for plaintiffs, folks! The court must instruct the jury that:

* The liability standard is the "reasonable person" standard (because who doesn't love a good game of "what would a reasonable person do?"). * A business can't be found negligent solely because it stayed open during the pandemic. I mean, what's a little COVID-19 when there are profits to be made? * The act of opening a business is considered "reasonable as a matter of law." Because, you know, freedom.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects businesses (big and small), their employees, customers, and anyone who might have been affected by COVID-19 transmission in a commercial setting. But let's be real, folks – the real stakeholders here are the corporate elites who want to avoid accountability for their actions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If this bill passes, it'll make it much harder for individuals to hold businesses accountable for their role in spreading COVID-19. It's a classic case of "profits over people." But hey, who needs personal responsibility when you've got the "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act" on your side? (smirk)

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Isn't this just another example of the deep state protecting its corporate cronies?" And to that, I say... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...you bet it is! But hey, at least we can all rest easy knowing that our freedoms are being protected – the freedom to get sick and not sue anyone about it, that is.

**Bill Summary: HR 99 - Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 99 is to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits related to the transmission of COVID-19. The bill aims to establish a clear liability standard in federal civil actions, ensuring that businesses are not held liable for damages solely due to their decision to remain open during the pandemic.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces four key provisions:

1. **Reasonable Person Standard**: Establishes the "reasonable person" standard as the liability benchmark in federal civil actions related to COVID-19 transmission. 2. **Negligence Definition**: Defines negligence as either doing something a reasonably careful person would not do or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. 3. **Business Operations Deemed Reasonable**: Declares that opening a business, by itself, is considered reasonable as a matter of law. 4. **No Liability for Staying Open**: Prohibits finding negligence solely based on a business's decision to remain open during the pandemic.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects:

1. Businesses, particularly those in industries that were forced to adapt to COVID-19 restrictions (e.g., retail, hospitality, and healthcare). 2. Individuals who may have contracted COVID-19 while visiting or working at a business. 3. Insurance companies and liability insurers. 4. State and federal courts handling COVID-19-related lawsuits.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions could lead to:

1. Reduced number of frivolous lawsuits against businesses, potentially saving them from significant financial burdens. 2. Increased confidence among businesses to operate during future public health crises without fear of unwarranted liability. 3. Potential limitations on individuals' ability to seek compensation for COVID-19-related damages, as the bill's provisions may make it more challenging to prove negligence.

Overall, HR 99 aims to strike a balance between protecting businesses from unfounded lawsuits and ensuring that individuals can still seek justice in cases of genuine negligence related to COVID-19 transmission.

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

HR 99 is all about protectin' businesses from gettin' slammed with frivolous lawsuits related to COVID-19 transmission, man. The main goal is to give 'em a fair shake in court and prevent unnecessary litigation. It's like, if you're runnin' a business and doin' your best to keep people safe, you shouldn't be worried about gettin' sued just for bein' open, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill introduces some key changes to how federal courts handle COVID-related negligence cases. Here's the lowdown:

* It requires a specific jury instruction that sets the liability standard as the "reasonable person" standard. This means the court will instruct the jury to consider whether the business acted like a reasonably careful person would in similar circumstances. * The bill also says that just because a business is open, it doesn't mean they're negligent. That's a big deal, bro – it gives businesses some breathing room and acknowledges that stayin' open during a pandemic can be a tough call. * Lastly, the court can't find negligence solely based on the fact that a business stayed open. There needs to be more evidence of wrongdoing, man.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects businesses, especially small ones, that might not have the resources to fight off frivolous lawsuits. It's also relevant for employees and customers who might be impacted by COVID-related policies in the workplace. On the other side, you got plaintiff attorneys and advocacy groups who might see this as a way to limit accountability for businesses that don't take proper precautions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could have some significant implications:

* Businesses might feel more confident about stayin' open during future pandemics or public health crises, knowin' they've got some protection from lawsuits. * It could also lead to fewer frivolous lawsuits, which would save time and resources for everyone involved. * However, some folks might argue that this bill goes too far in protectin' businesses at the expense of individuals who might have legitimate claims. That's a valid concern, bro – we gotta make sure we're balancin' the scales of justice.

Anyway, that's HR 99 in a nutshell, dude. It's all about findin' that sweet spot between protectin' businesses and keepin' people safe during crazy times like pandemics.

**HR 99: Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 99 is to shield businesses from liability in cases where customers or employees contract COVID-19 on their premises. The bill aims to establish a more lenient standard for determining negligence, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove that a business was responsible for the transmission of the virus.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a specific jury instruction in federal civil actions involving claims of negligence related to COVID-19 transmission. The instruction:

1. Establishes the "reasonable person standard" as the liability benchmark. 2. Defines negligence as either doing something a reasonably careful person wouldn't do or failing to do something they would do in similar circumstances. 3. Deems opening a business, by itself, as reasonable behavior. 4. Prohibits finding negligence solely based on keeping a business open.

These provisions deviate from existing law, which typically relies on state-specific standards for determining negligence. By introducing a more lenient federal standard, HR 99 would likely reduce the number of successful lawsuits against businesses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill primarily benefits businesses, particularly those in industries with high foot traffic or close customer interactions (e.g., retail, hospitality, and healthcare). These companies have been vocal about their concerns regarding potential COVID-19-related liability. On the other hand, individuals who contract COVID-19 on business premises may face increased barriers to seeking compensation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** HR 99's passage could lead to a significant reduction in COVID-19-related lawsuits against businesses. This might alleviate some of the financial burdens associated with these claims, but it also raises concerns about public health and safety. By making it more difficult for individuals to hold businesses accountable for negligence, the bill may inadvertently encourage companies to prioritize profits over safety protocols.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The National Retail Federation (NRF) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been vocal supporters of similar legislation in the past. These organizations have significant lobbying power and have contributed to the campaigns of several lawmakers who support HR 99, including Rep. Biggs (R-AZ), the bill's sponsor. The NRF has also donated to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).