Faced with the federal government’s inability to address the economic effect of out-of-control product liability judgments, a growing number of states are taking steps to overhaul their civil justice systems to curb excessive lawsuits, stabilize insurance costs and create a more predictable legal climate for employers and consumers.
The push comes amid mounting evidence that litigation imposes significant financial burdens on the economy. Supporters of reform say state-level efforts are helping create fairer, more efficient legal systems that benefit businesses and consumers. Critics counter that reforms must be designed to ensure people can still seek justice when harmed.
The American Tort Reform Association estimates unnecessary lawsuits cost Americans $367.8 billion annually, a figure often described as a hidden “tort tax.”
Research cited by legal reform advocates suggests that the typical American pays $1,666 yearly in litigation costs, or more than $6,600 annually for a family of four. The Insurance Information Institute estimates that motor vehicle tort cases alone generated $42.8 billion in excessive litigation costs nationwide between 2014 and 2023.
Business groups and policymakers argue that unbridled litigation forces companies to divert resources from investment, wages and innovation to legal defense and insurance premiums. The result, they contend, is less economic growth.
Despite these concerns, federal tort reform efforts have been limited. Washington’s failure to implement widespread change is due, in no small measure, to the outsized influence of the trial lawyers’ lobby on Capitol Hill. The Constitution’s delegation of civil liability matters to the states also complicates the process, as do the public’s mixed feelings about lawsuits — people think there are too many lawsuits, but they don’t want their right to sue curtailed.
In the absence of significant federal reforms, states have emerged as the primary battleground for changes to civil liability laws. Over the past several years, legislatures in Georgia, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Utah have enacted or pushed for reforms to limit liability awards.
Georgia took a significant step in 2025 when Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill that revised aspects of the state’s civil liability system, including clarifying damage standards and modifying procedural rules governing lawsuits. The reforms followed high-profile product liability litigation in Georgia, including a $2.1 billion jury verdict against Bayer to a plaintiff who developed cancer after using the weed killer Roundup.
State officials said the reforms will ensure fairness while reducing incentives for excessive or speculative claims. Proponents also argued the measures would help stabilize insurance markets and create a more favorable climate for job creation and business growth.
“These are not anti-lawyer or pro-insurance bills; these are pro-Georgia bills,” Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones said. “These bills ensure that we put Georgia families and consumers first by tackling the hidden costs we have all been paying thanks to Georgia’s current tort laws.” The reforms “strike a balance by stabilizing insurance costs for businesses and consumers, while increasing transparency and fairness for all Georgia citizens.”
In May 2025, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed legislation aimed at limiting certain types of lawsuit awards and restricting “forum shopping,” in which plaintiffs file cases in jurisdictions perceived as more favorable to their complaint. Supporters say the changes will encourage business investment by reducing uncertainty in Oklahoma’s civil litigation process.
Florida has also enacted sweeping reforms. In 2023, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that made significant changes to civil litigation rules, including modifications affecting attorney fees and negligence standards.
Several subsequent efforts to undo those reforms have failed.
The Florida experience illustrates the growing momentum behind tort reform and the debate surrounding it. While supporters argue that reforms reduce costs and increase fairness, opponents worry the measures could restrict protections for injured individuals.
“The word ‘reform’ is a complete misnomer,” says Joanne Doroshow, the executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a nonprofit advocacy group that seeks to protect consumers’ rights in the court system. “These laws take away people’s rights to access the courts and be properly compensated, and they undermine the constitutional right to a jury trial. … Most tort restrictions are passed at the state level because liability laws are primarily state laws, and because it is easier for corporate lobbyists to grease state lawmakers with lobbying and campaign money.”
Not all states are in reform mode. California, New York, South Carolina and Louisiana are among the states cited in recent legal reform reports as retaining less restrictive liability systems. California has the highest “tort tax” in the country, averaging more than $2,400 per resident annually, which critics say contributes to significant economic losses and reduced job growth.
As a result of the states’ differing approaches, businesses operate under a growing patchwork of civil justice systems across the country. That may change. Rising litigation costs and increased economic competition among states may prompt lawmakers in more states to explore changes to civil liability laws. It’s an effort supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“What started as just a few states recognizing this nightmare has become a nationwide movement,” said Stephen Waguespack, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.
“Lawmakers and engaged citizens have realized just how much trial attorneys are driving up the cost of everything. Momentum is building, and we have more reforms on the horizon. At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we’re working alongside state and federal policymakers to stop these frivolous lawsuits and ultimately lower costs.”
Randall Bloomquist is the head of Bloomquist Media. He wrote this for Insidesources.com.
