State Bills Counter Vaccine Liability Immunity: Accountability
State-Level Legislation Is Countering Manufacturers' and Mandators' Federal Legal Immunity
Since 2020, several U.S. states have introduced or enacted legislation to address the liability protections granted to vaccine manufacturers under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. The PREP Act provides broad legal immunity to manufacturers, distributors, and administrators of vaccines during public health "emergencies," shielding them from lawsuits related to vaccine injuries unless "willful misconduct" is proven. The NCVIA similarly protects manufacturers of routine childhood vaccines, channeling claims through the laborious National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). In response, states like Texas, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Idaho have proposed or passed bills to counteract vaccine liability immunity, aiming to hold manufacturers, state entities, or other mandators accountable for vaccine-related harms, forced vaccinations through mandates, and/or to require a waiver of federal immunity.
Texas’ House Bill 3441: Targeting Manufacturer Advertising
Texas has taken a significant step with House Bill 3441, passed in 2023 and effective September 1, 2025, which holds vaccine manufacturers liable for injuries caused by their products if they advertise in the state. The bill targets vaccine liability immunity by making manufacturers accountable for actual damages and court costs up to three years after an injury, particularly for products deemed “unavoidably unsafe.” Sponsored by State Sen. Bob Hall (R) and championed by medical liberty advocate and Dallas salon owner Shelley Luther, HB3441 addresses the NCVIA’s protections and aims to ensure manufacturers face consequences for defective vaccines.
Iowa’s House File 712: Waiving Manufacturer Immunity
Iowa’s House File 712, introduced in 2025, prohibits the distribution, sale, or administration of vaccines unless manufacturers waive immunity from lawsuits for injuries caused by design defects. This bill directly challenges vaccine liability immunity under the PREP Act and NCVIA, requiring manufacturers to accept legal responsibility for harms. By mandating this waiver, HF712 aims to ensure Iowans injured by vaccines have access to legal recourse. The bill, still under consideration, responds to public concerns about vaccine safety.
New Jersey’s Senate Bill 384: Accountability for Mandates
New Jersey’s Senate Bill 384 focuses on holding entities enforcing vaccine mandates accountable for resulting injuries. The bill focuses on state agencies, employers, or institutions imposing mandatory vaccinations, requiring them to assume liability for adverse effects. By shifting responsibility to mandators, SB384 bypasses vaccine liability immunity at the federal level, aiming to discourage coercive vaccination policies. Supporters view it as a safeguard against overreach, protecting individual choice, while critics argue it could undermine public health mandates.
New York’s SB5910: Dual Approach to Liability
New York’s Senate Bill 5910 address vaccine liability immunity holding state and local governments liable for injuries resulting from enforced vaccine mandates. It ensures accountability for policy decisions and balances public health with individual protections.
Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 801: Comprehensive Accountability
Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 801 requires both vaccine manufacturers and state entities to waive vaccine liability immunity for injuries caused by vaccines or mandates. It prohibits vaccine distribution unless manufacturers agree to liability for design defects and adverse reactions, and it holds state agencies accountable for mandate-related injuries. The bill includes a state-administered compensation fund to streamline legal processes.
Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Idaho: Emerging Efforts
Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Idaho have passed legislation related to holding vaccine accountability, aligning with Texas’s approach. These states have enacted laws to reduce vaccine liability immunity, focusing on manufacturer accountability for defective vaccines. For example, Tennessee’s legislation resembles Texas’s HB3441, targeting liability for injuries, while Arkansas and Louisiana have also banned vaccine mandates, reducing scenarios where mandators could face liability. Idaho’s laws similarly limit mandates and prohibit vaccine passports, supporting accountability measures. These efforts reflect a broader movement to address public concerns about vaccine safety, though further details are needed to confirm their scope.
States Limiting Mandates: Indirect Accountability
Several states, including Texas, Florida, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Kansas, South Carolina, Missouri, and Alabama, have banned or limited vaccine mandates, indirectly reducing potential liability for injuries by minimizing forced vaccinations. For instance, Texas’s SB 29 (2023) prohibits governmental entities from mandating COVID-19 vaccines, and Florida imposes fines of $10,000 per employee violation for mandate breaches. Montana bans mandates for all employers except healthcare institutions, requiring accommodations for unvaccinated employees. These measures, while not directly addressing liability for mandate-related injuries, reduce the scenarios where state entities or businesses could face accountability for enforced vaccinations.
Proposed Legislation in Other States
South Carolina, Missouri, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are considering legislation to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable. Some of these states have also restricted vaccine mandates, with Kansas banning mandates for all employers and South Carolina prohibiting proof of vaccination for services. These efforts suggest a legislative environment critical of vaccine liability immunity and supportive of accountability; however, their proposed laws remain in early stages.
Federal Context and Legal Challenges
The PREP Act and NCVIA pose significant barriers to state efforts, granting broad immunity to manufacturers for COVID-19 and childhood vaccines, respectively. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for COVID-19 vaccines has a very low payout rate, limiting recourse for injuries. States like Texas and Iowa are navigating these federal protections by targeting specific activities (e.g., advertising) or requiring immunity waivers, but legal challenges due to federal preemption remain a concern. Many people are frustrated with these federal shields, as can be seen across social media platforms, so that is helping to fuel state-level action.
Implications and Challenges
These state bills reflect growing public demand to counteract vaccine liability immunity, addressing concerns about vaccine safety, mandates, and lack of recourse. By holding manufacturers and mandators accountable, they aim to increase transparency and perhaps increase trust in vaccination programs. However, federal preemption may limit their enforceability, and manufacturers will likely resist waiving immunity. Accountability measures would ensure safer products and policies, balancing individual rights with public health concerns.
Public Health Accountability Is Evolving
Texas’ HB3441, Iowa’s HF712, New Jersey’s SB384, New York’s SB5910, Oklahoma’s SB801, and laws in Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Idaho represent a significant push to counteract vaccine liability immunity and to put Americans' freedom of choice and safety first. By targeting manufacturers and mandators, these bills seek to ensure accountability for vaccine injuries and coercive mandates. States like South Carolina, Missouri, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are exploring similar measures, while mandate bans in multiple states reduce potential liability scenarios. As these efforts progress, they will shape the national conversation on vaccine safety, individual protections, and public health policy, though their success hinges on overcoming federal legal barriers.
Thank you for all your work.
Important topic. Interesting to me that the most populous state in the country (California); a heavily Democratic Party leadership state, has NOT taken steps similar to those being taken in Texas to give it's citizens the right to sue pharmaceutical companies when injured by their products. Why wouldn't they, and all other states choose not to join this movement? I'm truly baffled.