Florida bill links vaccine lawsuits to advertising and sparks constitutional debate
Florida lawmakers are considering a proposal that could open a new avenue for lawsuits against vaccine makers, which would quickly change the long-term limitations of liability. The bill would allow people who say they were harmed by a vaccine to sue the manufacturer if that company advertises the vaccine in Florida. Supporters tout the idea as a way to strengthen accountability and informed consent, while critics warn it could conflict with federal law and the First Amendment.
The measure, House Bill 339, is moving through the Florida Legislature and has already sparked debate inside and outside the Capitol. Under the proposal, a person who suffered harm after receiving the vaccine would have three years to file a civil lawsuit, but only if the vaccine manufacturer advertised the product within the state. The advertising link is the core of the bill and the source of most of the legal concerns raised during committee hearings.
Vaccine manufacturers have long been shielded from most civil lawsuits by federal protections. These rules were designed to ensure a stable vaccine supply and to handle injury claims through federal compensation programs rather than state courts. As a result, people alleging vaccine-related injuries generally cannot sue manufacturers directly. The bill would create an exception by linking legal exposure to advertising activity rather than just the manufacturing process.
sponsor of the bill, Monique Millersaid the goal is to promote informed consent and ensure that companies stand behind their products. He argued that if vaccine injuries are truly rare, manufacturers should be willing to accept liability for damage when it occurs. The purpose of the bill, he said, is to provide a clear path for patients to get answers and relief when they believe they have been seriously injured by a vaccine.
During legislative debate, lawmakers acknowledged that the bill still needed clearer language, particularly about how loss and injury would be defined. In recent years, public attention has focused on rare adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including cases of heart inflammation reported mostly in young men. Lawmakers noted that while such incidents are rare, they have fueled public concern and calls for more transparency.
The bill has been opposed by legal groups and policy advocates who say it suffers from serious constitutional problems. Critics say the proposal targets commercial speech, a category of speech protected by the First Amendment. Commercial speech includes advertising and marketing, and while it can be regulated, courts require a strong justification. The government must demonstrate a genuine public interest, demonstrate that the speech is misleading or harmful, and ensure that the restrictions are narrowly appropriate.
William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, told lawmakers that people already have ways to seek restitution under federal law. They argued that the bill is blocked by federal laws and unfairly singles out advertising as a trigger for lawsuits. In their view, the proposal not only regulates speech but also penalizes it by attaching legal risk to advertising.
Legal scholars note that courts have allowed limits on commercial speech in some cases, but those limits face close scrutiny. If HB 339 becomes law, it could invite judicial review of whether attaching liability to advertising activity is unconstitutional. Opponents say the bill could discourage companies from sharing information about vaccines in Florida, even if that information is accurate.
Some testimonies also raised political concerns. Several speakers questioned whether the bill fits into the administration’s broader efforts. Ron DeSantis To reduce vaccine requirements and appeal to voters skeptical of childhood and COVID-era vaccines. While supporters of the bill deny it is part of a larger anti-vaccine push, critics see it as another step that could undermine public confidence in vaccines.
The idea behind HB 339 is not entirely new. Miller said she looks to a similar law passed in Texas last year. The move also drew criticism from business and legal groups, who warned that it could chill free speech and expose companies to unexpected legal risk for merely promoting legal products.
HB 339 passed its first committee on a 12-4 vote and must clear two more committees before reaching the Florida House floor. A companion bill, Senate Bill 408, is also moving to the Senate. As bills move forward, lawmakers face pressure to balance patient concerns, public health goals and constitutional limitations.
If passed, the proposal could reshape how vaccine manufacturers operate in Florida and how far states can go in binding legal liability to advertising. This finding could not only affect vaccine policy, but also set a test case for how commercial speech is treated when public health and consumer protection collide.
Sources:
Florida may create new way to sue vaccine makers for damages
Florida lawmakers introduce a bill that could lead to lawsuits over vaccine ads.
