Stephany Matat
USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida
Feb. 12, 2026, 5:04 a.m. ET

Key Points

A Florida bill would allow lawsuits against vaccine makers if they advertise in the state and someone is harmed.
Critics argue the proposal could unconstitutionally restrict commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.
The bill’s sponsor says it aims to promote informed consent and ensure manufacturer liability for harm.

Someone who’s hurt by a vaccine could sue its manufacturer if the company has advertised the shot in Florida.

That’s the substance of a bill now under consideration by the Legislature, a proposal that critics say could restrict commercial speech under the First Amendment.

Commercial speech is a distinct category under the First Amendment, which protects speech used to sell products or services. It often involves advertising and marketing. But courts have determined that it can be restricted.

Lawmakers largely agreed that this year’s measure (HB 339) needed more work in defining harm and injury that leads to suing a manufacturer who advertises vaccines. In recent years, rare adverse events such as heart inflammation have been identified following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, particularly among younger men.

Vaccine manufacturers generally have very limited exposure to civil lawsuits for injuries allegedly caused by their product because of federal liability protections and compensation programs. If passed, this bill would create a new civil legal route to file a lawsuit by tying it to advertising.

Its sponsor, state Rep. Monique Miller, R-Palm Bay, said she filed the measure in part to promote informed consent and ensure vaccine manufacturers are liable for harm. The bill does provide a three-year statute of limitations.

But some public testimony before the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee on Feb. 11 highlighted concern over whether the bill played into the DeSantis administration’s efforts to roll back vaccine requirements amid a rising conservative movement against many childhood vaccinations.

“If they are (safe) and that harm is so rare, then what is the harm in standing by those products and saying we trust it enough that we’re willing to take on anything that comes out of it that’s harmful or debilitating to a patient?” Miller told the panel.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, countered that people already can hold manufacturers liable for harm caused by vaccine under federal law.

“It is preempted by three federal acts, violates the First Amendment and is bad policy,” Large said. “This violates the First Amendment because it’s directly aimed at protected speech, which is commercial speech, in terms of advertising.”

Courts have determined, however, that commercial speech can be restricted if the government can demonstrate the speech is misleading, prove a “substantial interest” in regulating the speech and not be more strict than necessary, according to the Freedom Forum.

Miller said her bill was inspired by a similar measure approved in Texas last year, which also raised alarms. The Texas Civil Justice League wrote at the time that it creates “significant legal consequences for exercising First Amendment rights” in terms of commercial speech.

The measure passed the panel on a 12-4 vote; it has two more committees before reaching the House floor. A companion Senate bill (SB 408) also is pending two committees.

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@usatodayco.com. On X: @stephanymatat.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/state/2026/02/12/florida-may-create-new-way-to-sue-vaccine-makers-for-harm/88623985007/

Monday, Dec. 6, 2010

Florida lawsuit critics eager for their day in court

By Brandon Larrabee/News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE – In 2003, Gov. Jeb Bush tried to push an expansive package of civil-justice changes through the Florida Legislature. Bills moved easily through the House; the main obstacle to some of the more sweeping ideas was the Senate.

Now, because of a new conservative wave that has swept over the upper chamber, the business community that has longed for an overhaul of the state’s litigation system – a move supporters call “tort reform” – think that their day might have come at last.

“No question, tort reform is now going to be an issue that we’re going to be able to get through the Senate without gnawing our fingers off,” said Barney Bishop, president and CEO of the Associated Industries of Florida, a business group.

Not as excited are the state’s trial lawyers, who now face a possible onslaught of tort changes after an erosion of their support in the Senate. But Debra Henley, executive director of the Florida Justice Association, said her group was prepared for the fight.

“We’ve had tough fights on the rights and remedies of Florida’s citizens for many years now,” Henley said.

Part of the business community’s optimism is shaped not just by the shift in the Senate, but by who is providing the new outlook: Some of the same supporters of the 2003 tort reform package.

“We have a lot of House members who served around that time who have moved over to the Senate,” said Adam Babington, vice president for government affairs at the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Henley downplayed how significantly the upper chamber’s shift would affect the group’s ability to stave off tort reform measures.

“The Senate’s a deliberative body,” she said. “They’re still a deliberative body.”

To be sure, some measures were already moving through the Legislature with relative ease, including one – “slip-and-fall” legislation – that increases the burden of proof on a business owner accused of allowing his premises to become dangerous. Another caps the fees that the attorney general’s office can pay to outside attorneys.

But the incoming senators are not the only new voice at the Capitol on civil-justice issues. Gov.-elect Rick Scott incorporated an overhaul of the courts a part of his “blueprint” in the 2010 campaign, highlighting a slate of measures backed by the business community.

A bill dealing with “crashworthiness” – essentially, a debate about whether jurors should be allowed to hear about the driver’s possible role before deciding a car company’s responsibility when a faulty vehicle crashes – has already been filed.

Scott has also touted:

– Changes to the state’s “bad faith” laws involving insurance claims.

– Proposals to provide some protections, perhaps through the state’s sovereign immunity, to doctors who treat Medicaid patients.

– A tightening of the state’s expert witness standards.

Scott’s transition team on regulatory reform includes William Large, executive director of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which supports tort reform.

Interest groups also expect a possible return of a measure sponsored in 2010 by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, that would have provided sovereign immunity to ER doctors.

Henley suggested that her group would reach out to Scott – a former health-care executive whose gubernatorial bid was his first run for office – as he begins to form his agenda.

“Gov.-elect Scott is new to these issues,” Henley said. “We’ve been seeing this issues for 20 years.”

But business organizations seem confident that the tide is turning.

“I think all options are on the table,” Babington said, “and that’s what’s exciting for the business community.”

[email protected], (678) 977-3709

See Full Article

Florida may create new way to sue vaccine makers for harm_Jax

Florida Lawsuit Critics Eager for their Day in Court

Florida lawsuit critics eager for their day in court

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links