Governor Brian Kemp Signs Tort Reform Legislation, Excludes Human Trafficking From Its Provisions

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has been a proponent of tort reform legislation for years, stating that the “current litigation climate has led to increased costs for consumers and a higher barrier to entry for those who want to create jobs in [Georgia].”¹ After years of advocating for such reform, Governor Kemp signed S.B. 68 on April 21, 2025.

S.B. 68 raises the standard for plaintiffs to hold companies and individuals liable for alleged harm that occurs on their properties by introducing several legal requirements, among them that the defendant has particularized knowledge of imminent wrongdoing or reasonably should have known that wrongdoing was likely to occur. The bill states, in part, that “an owner or occupier shall be liable for negligent security arising from any injury sustained by any person upon the premises of the owner or occupier as an invitee” if the conduct causing the injury and the resulting injury are “reasonably foreseeable” and the owner or occupier failed to exercise the appropriate level of care due to the individual on their premises.² Under the new law, liability hinges on the foreseeability of injury and injurious conduct and limits liability according to the level of care exercised by owners and the security measures put in place.

Exemptions for Human Trafficking Claims

Opponents of the bill argue that it severely limits opportunities for plaintiffs to find redress and unfairly limits potential awards. The various constituencies opposing reform put up seemingly insurmountable barriers to its passage for years. Until the 2025 legislative session. Although most opponents of the legislation failed to halt its momentum, survivors of human trafficking and their advocates were successful in carving out a provision in the bill to maintain the existing legal framework with respect to lawsuits that seek to hold companies and individuals liable for trafficking-related conduct. In particular, the bill includes a provision stating “nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect any cause of action brought pursuant to Code Section 51-1-56 [Georgia’s statute providing for civil recovery for victims of trafficking] or any other applicable law or theory of recovery otherwise recognized by law, including, but not limited to negligence and nuisance, in connection with an alleged violation of Code Section 16-5-46 [Georgia’s criminal statute for trafficking in persons].” Thus the bill allows for survivors to continue to bring claims against entities such as hotels and other places of accommodation that could be alleged to have played a role in their trafficking.³

Governor Kemp has long been an advocate for victims of trafficking, having signed into law three bills aimed at increasing protections for survivors last April. His position, together with testimony from advocates, lawyers, survivors, and their families prompted lawmakers to amend the bill to exclude from its limitations trafficking claims brought in civil litigation in Georgia.⁴

Legal and Business Implications of Trafficking Liability

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) augmented federal protection for victims of labor- and sex-trafficking and enhanced civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms against those who participate, even indirectly, in instances of trafficking.⁵

With respect to civil lawsuits, the Human Trafficking Legal Center reports that since the enactment of the TVPRA in 2003, there has been an exponential growth in the number of cases filed by plaintiffs. And since 2008, when Congress expanded liability under the TVPRA to individuals and entities that knowingly benefit from trafficking activity, corporate and institutional liability has significantly increased.⁶

In recent years, plaintiffs have achieved far more favorable outcomes in civil trafficking cases with a total of over $900 million in damages awarded between 2003 and 2023 nationally, not including any confidential settlements, which are believed to be substantial.⁷ Further, in the more than 20 years of litigation under the TVPRA, more than 80 percent of all civil trafficking cases, and 90 percent of sex trafficking civil cases, involved at least one corporate or institutional defendant, including hotels, motels, hospitality franchises, banks, internet services providers, athletic institutions, teen programs, and detention institutions.⁸ Transportation services have been the subject of suits as well, including a recent lawsuit against a popular ride-sharing company, which alleged that it allowed a 14-year-old “to be transported without parental consent and at the request of an alleged sex trafficker.”⁹ Insurance companies also have reason to pay attention to these changes, as they may be responsible to defend and indemnify.¹⁰

With respect to the liability of property owners in particular, foreseeability is at the heart of the analysis. Courts consider the totality of the circumstances when determining what the proprietor knew or should have known about the risk of criminal activity and whether such activity was reasonably foreseeable so as to find a duty to invitees to guard against criminal activity.¹¹ In November 2023, Georgia’s State Court of Appeals found that a hotel could be held liable for the sex trafficking of a minor, the first time an appellate court in Georgia held a property owner liable for foreseeable sex trafficking on its property.¹² The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied based on the allegations that the hotel had a long history of criminal activity on the property, saw frequent, brief visits by single male guests to rooms they had not personally rented, and that traffickers were regularly given rooms not visible from the street. The court determined that, under the totality of the circumstances, there were disputed questions of fact regarding whether trafficking conduct was reasonably foreseeable.¹³

Other similar ongoing cases brought under the TVPRA and related state laws have also survived motions to dismiss and for summary judgment based on alleged facts including frequent and brief single male visitors to the same hotel room, increased housekeeping requests for towels and sheets, and the presence of young women and girls, often in tight, revealing clothing and/or with injuries, being accompanied through the hotel by much older men.¹⁴

The trafficking carve-out to Georgia’s tort reform bill highlights the continued importance and risks posed by human trafficking for businesses and individuals in Georgia and elsewhere. Even with the strong movement for tort reform in Georgia, survivors and advocates in this space were successful in exempting these claims from the reform bill. All branches of government continue to recognize the importance of preventing and protecting victims of trafficking and offering them maximum opportunities for redress.

Companies and individuals in industries with potential exposure to trafficking should ensure they have policies in place to identify and stop trafficking activity, sex and labor, and ongoing training for leaders, managers, and employees to identify and prevent trafficking activity.

[View source.]