HR-4668-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
What it does
This bill would remove the liability protections that vaccine manufacturers and administrators currently have under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). It would allow individuals alleging vaccine-related injuries to file civil lawsuits directly in court without first going through the VICP, and would remove existing caps on damages and restrictions on the types of claims allowed. It would also remove filing deadlines under the VICP — retroactively — and would exclude COVID-19 vaccines from liability protections under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), opening manufacturers of those vaccines to direct civil lawsuits.
Who benefits
Individuals who believe they were injured by vaccines and want to sue manufacturers or administrators directly in civil court. Personal injury attorneys who would gain access to a new category of tort litigation. Individuals who previously missed VICP filing deadlines and would now have retroactive access to claims. Vaccine-skeptic advocacy groups whose policy goals include removing liability shields. Competing pharmaceutical companies not in the vaccine market who would face less disadvantaged competition.
Who is hurt
Vaccine manufacturers, who could face large civil jury verdicts and would likely respond by raising prices or exiting the vaccine market. Vaccine administrators (doctors, pharmacists, nurses) who could face individual lawsuits. The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, which is funded by an excise tax on vaccines and could face increased claims. Public health programs that depend on a stable vaccine supply, which could be disrupted if manufacturers exit. Taxpayers and insured patients who may face higher healthcare costs if vaccine availability decreases. Children and immunocompromised individuals who depend on high vaccination rates for herd immunity protection.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the VICP's liability shield removes a critical accountability mechanism that exists for virtually every other consumer product, allowing manufacturers to profit without bearing the full cost of potential harms. They contend that the program's restrictions — including damage caps, limited claim types, and strict filing deadlines — have left genuinely injured individuals without adequate recourse, and that restoring access to civil courts would incentivize manufacturers to invest more rigorously in vaccine safety research and post-market surveillance. They further argue that COVID-19 vaccines were authorized under emergency use and that the CICP's compensation record has been widely criticized as inadequate, making civil liability a necessary corrective.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the VICP was deliberately created by Congress in 1986 precisely because unrestricted vaccine litigation caused manufacturers to exit the market, creating dangerous shortages of childhood vaccines — a documented historical crisis the bill would risk repeating. They contend that the VICP already provides a no-fault compensation pathway that is faster and less burdensome than civil litigation, and that opening manufacturers to unlimited tort liability would raise vaccine prices, reduce supply, and depress vaccination rates, with the heaviest public health consequences falling on vulnerable populations. They further argue that retroactive removal of filing deadlines creates significant legal uncertainty and could expose manufacturers to claims decades old.