Summary#
H.R. 10783, the Speak Your Truth Act, would create a new federal law; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated aim is to require plaintiffs to pay a prevailing defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs in certain defamation or libel cases in federal court. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it is not law, and whether it will pass is uncertain.
- The fee rule would apply to cases brought in, or moved to, a U.S. federal court over a defendant’s qualifying communication.
- A qualifying communication must be factual information shared with another person without malice, about an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination experienced by the person who shared it.
- Covered incidents include sexual assault or sexual harassment; workplace harassment or discrimination, including failing to prevent it, helping or urging it, or retaliating against someone for reporting or opposing it; and harassment or discrimination by a housing-authority owner, including retaliation for reporting it.
- A prevailing defendant would be entitled to reasonable fees and costs from the plaintiff, limited to the defendant’s reasonable fees and costs for the particular position or claim. A court may reduce the award if exceptional, unusual, and special circumstances make payment unjust.
What it means for you#
- People sued over a covered communication: If you prevail in a qualifying defamation or libel case in federal court, the bill would entitle you to reasonable attorney fees and costs, subject to the limits and exception above.
- People bringing those cases: If the defendant prevails, you would generally have to pay the defendant’s eligible fees and costs. The bill does not set a maximum dollar amount.
- People whose communications are outside the definition, or whose cases stay in state court: The bill does not extend this fee rule to those situations.
- General public: The bill creates a fee rule, not a new reporting service, application process, or protection that prevents someone from filing a lawsuit.
Money#
No publicly available information on expected public costs or the amount of fees that might be awarded.
- The bill does not appropriate money or create a publicly funded program. It says the plaintiff pays an eligible fee award.
- It gives no estimate of private fee payments, court administration costs, or how often courts might make awards.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “without malice,” “related to,” or “prevailing defendant,” or explain how a court should apply those terms.
- It does not explain how courts should divide fees when a defendant wins only on a particular position or claim.
- It does not set out a process or deadline for requesting fees.
- The bill materials do not explain how this fee rule would interact with current federal or state rules.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that people who prevail against defamation or libel claims over covered communications should not have to bear all their legal costs.
- The fee rule could make it more costly to bring a case that fails against someone sharing factual information about their own experience of assault, harassment, or discrimination.
- Limiting fees to reasonable costs for the particular position or claim, and allowing a court to reduce fees in exceptional circumstances, gives courts some ability to limit unfair awards.
Case against#
- One concern is that the prospect of paying a defendant’s legal fees could discourage people from bringing a defamation or libel case, including cases that may have merit.
- The bill does not set a fee cap, so a plaintiff’s potential financial exposure is unclear.
- Terms such as “without malice” and “prevailing defendant” are not defined in the bill, leaving important questions to courts.
- The rule applies only to communications within the bill’s definition and cases in federal court; the bill does not explain how that limit would work alongside other laws or court rules.