Protecting Businesses From COVID Lawsuits: New Federal Bill Sets High Bar for Negligence Claims

The Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025 aims to shield businesses from legal liability by fundamentally changing how federal juries evaluate COVID-19 transmission cases. Under this bill, if you were to sue a company for negligence—claiming you contracted the virus because they failed to maintain a safe environment—the judge would be required to give the jury very specific marching orders. Specifically, Section 2 mandates that juries be told that simply keeping a business open for customers is 'reasonable as a matter of law.' This means a jury cannot find a business negligent just because they decided to stay open during a surge or a pandemic.

The 'Reasonable Person' Standard

In the legal world, negligence usually boils down to whether you acted like a 'reasonably careful person' would in the same situation. This bill takes that abstract concept and applies it directly to the pandemic era. If this passes, a federal jury must be instructed that negligence only happens if a business owner did something a reasonably careful person wouldn't do—or failed to do something they should have. For example, if a grocery store clerk or a construction worker tries to sue their employer for unsafe conditions, the court must clarify that the mere act of running the job site or store is not a strike against the business. This sets a high hurdle for plaintiffs, as they must prove specific failures beyond the general risk of being open to the public.

Shielding the Open Sign

The most significant shift in this legislation is the protection of the 'Open' sign. Section 2(4) explicitly prohibits a finding of negligence based solely on a person holding themselves open for business. For a small business owner or a retail manager, this provides a legal safety net, ensuring they aren't penalized just for operating. However, for a customer or an employee who believes they were harmed by a lack of masking enforcement or poor ventilation, this provision narrows the path to a successful lawsuit. It effectively removes the argument that a business shouldn't have been operating in the first place, forcing the legal battle to focus entirely on the specific safety protocols—or lack thereof—implemented inside.

Hurdles for Accountability

While the bill’s title focuses on 'frivolous' lawsuits, the practical impact reaches all COVID-related negligence claims in federal court. By pre-defining what is 'reasonable' (staying open), the bill potentially shifts the power balance in the courtroom. Public health advocates and individuals who suffered severe health consequences might find it significantly harder to hold companies accountable for perceived lapses in safety. Because the jury is instructed from the start that the business’s primary decision—to be open—is legally sound, the burden of proof on the injured party becomes much heavier. This could lead to fewer settlements and more dismissed cases for those who feel they were exposed to unnecessary risks while shopping or working.