Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Chicago Sky will be at Statehouse tomorrow
Next Post: Progress in the Dixmoor water crisis, thanks in part to Blue Island stepping up
Posted in:
* It’s just a bill…
Today, State Representative Ann Williams (D-Chicago) introduced House Bill 4192, the “Community Oversight of Vaccination Deception Act,” or the “COViD Act.” This initiative would allow any citizen, employer, business, academic institution, or entertainment venue to bring a civil action against a person who utilizes a fake vaccine document to gain entry or admission into a location or entity which requires proof of vaccination.
Modeled after the law recently passed in Texas that allows any citizen to sue someone who performs or aids an abortion, the COViD Act – in contrast to the Texas law – is actually designed to promote public health and safety by ensuring those who falsely represent their vaccine status can be held accountable.
“The Supreme Court ruling on the Texas law allows citizens to take civil action to enforce the State’s draconian abortion law. Here, we follow that approach, but rather than allowing a citizen to bring a civil action to enforce a law which doesn’t impact them, the COViD Act allows citizens to protect their own health and the health of others by holding those who falsify their vaccine status accountable,” said Williams. “The science shows vaccines have the ability to impact transmission of the virus by preventing infection altogether and by reducing the amount of infectious virus should a vaccinated individual become infected.”
The legislation provides for injunctive relief and allows plaintiffs to recover no less than $10,000 in statutory damages, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
“Choosing to patronize an event, attend a meeting or gather with people who you believe to be vaccinated is one way a person can choose to mitigate risk,” said Williams. “A person who claims to be vaccinated but is not presents a threat to the health of community members who may be relying on the fact they are associating with or in the physical presence of only vaccinated individuals.”
“Falsifying your vaccination status is simply wrong and those who do it should be held accountable,” she added.
* The Question: Should people who use a fake vax card be subjected to civil suits? Make sure to explain your answer in comments.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Chicago Sky will be at Statehouse tomorrow
Next Post: Progress in the Dixmoor water crisis, thanks in part to Blue Island stepping up
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Absolutely. By not getting vaccinated and going into a place of public accommodation you’re endangering the health of everyone else there, most notably those with underlying health conditions for whom the vaccine is not as effective, and chose to go to that place with the assumption everyone they interact with is vaccinated, thereby reducing their exposure.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:12 pm
I could see a civil suit if transmission of COVID occurred but not otherwise. However, I would like to see criminal charges for falsification of vaccination status. Not an attorney here so don’t know if that’s possible but it seems like fraud to me.
Comment by Manchester Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:14 pm
This is a bad idea from the standpoint is its a horrible idea to let citizens sue each other over social conscience issues.
Comment by the Edge Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:20 pm
This lends itself more toward a criminal violation than a civil remedy situation. Easy to prove a falsified card. Nearly impossible to prove civil damages resulting from its use.
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:22 pm
Public health is not mutually exclusive with social conscious issues.
Comment by Central IL Parent Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:23 pm
Not in this way. I have to admit part of me likes this, but I am not sure ‘Hey that is a stupid idea, lets modify it and do it for something else isn’t a way to govern.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:24 pm
Absolutely not. Just another bill to try to “own” Texas. Grow up .
Comment by Photo-graffer Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:25 pm
No, let the government deal with this. Just as much bad government as the abortion policing in Texas. That said, I would not have venues subject to any civil penalties for unintentionally allowing admittance to those who present them fake documents.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:25 pm
1. We all should be vaccinated. It is a responsibility we all hold as part of a society.
2. No state should pass on the responsibility to enforce law. It creates a vigilante attitude and further degrades our democracy.
Texas was wrong in crafting a law with this as its enforcement and we should not repeat that mistake.
Comment by Tired Teacher Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:26 pm
-However, I would like to see criminal charges for falsification of vaccination status. Not an attorney here so don’t know if that’s possible but it seems like fraud to me.-
People have already been charged federally for this. It’s usually been in the case of mass production/sale of fake CDC cards, but individuals who forge them could also be potentially charged, as the vaccine card is a federal government document.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:27 pm
Yes.
Especially considering how many county states attorneys will just look the other way and not prosecute the criminal act of forging government documents. Because freedom or something.
Unfortunately, a civil suit might be the only way, if even in a minimized civil penalty, to apply the law the local prosecutors are purposely refusing to enforce.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:28 pm
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, this should be managed as a criminal matter in that the fraudulent card is a counterfeit of an official document.
On the other hand, everyone is hurt when people use fake cards. The event holders are hurt because less people will want to come because they can’t be sure that others are complying with the norms. Would be attenders are hurt in that they are either kept away or subject to unnecessary stress that others are violating the norm.
Comment by aovermy@yahoo.com Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:31 pm
Horrific idea when Texas did it.
A lot of folks who abhorred Texas doing it, are now cheering because it supports something they like.
Can’t pick and choose to like a bad idea, if it fits your agenda.
Comment by Bruce(no not him) Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:34 pm
Vigilante-style civil suits where the plaintiff has suffered no direct harm or damages are terrible policy, no matter the subject. And clogging the courts is way down the list of bad side effects from going down this path.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:36 pm
Unless a person can establish direct harm as a result of someone else’s negligence they should not have a civil remedy. Whether that’s abortion or a fake Covid card.
This bill isn’t going anywhere and Rep. Williams’ knows as much. But using Covid to draw continued attention to the really bad law in Texas isn’t a bad political move at all.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:48 pm
No. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Comment by Steve Rogers Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:48 pm
Enough already. The Texas abortion law is wrong. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice the enforcement provision is bad policy. Same for Rep, Cassidy’s, Croke’s, and now William’s bills.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:49 pm
No, these private enforcement laws are dangerous. It’s like the private tax collectors in ancient Rome. It creates perverse incentives that could be avoided by having the state enforce the rules. Federal, state, and local government should have the resources to go after the knuckleheads making fake vaccination cards.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:51 pm
I strongly oppose what Texas did and I don’t want this replicated regardless of cause. Just because I believe people should get vaccinated and support the mandates, this is not the way. If someone falsified documents, go after them that way. A bad law is still a bad law even if the outcome tries to enforce something you like.
Comment by skutt Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:55 pm
=Absolutely not. Just another bill to try to “own” Texas. Grow up .=
Reminder that (from another thread), this poster advocated forcing rape victims to have and financially support the children of their rapists, and giving said rapists parental rights as well
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 3:58 pm
I understand the impulse, but this is not practical, and emulating the enforcement mechanism of the Texas law is the wrong approach. The more appropriate remedy is criminal charges for falsifying or supplying a counterfeit document.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:09 pm
If Texas didn’t happen, would Rep. Williams still have drafted this? Is it a good idea on its own merit? Because if it is, she shouldn’t have to invoke Texas into her reasoning.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:19 pm
No. Prosecute for fake card but no civil action. I will bet money that Texas law will be found unconstitutional for trying to let citizens stop a constitutional right
Also did they spend more time writing law or dreaming up “cute” name. These clever names are getting old.
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:21 pm
With all due respect to Rep. Williams, I think she is on the right track, but the bill makes more sense as an amendment to The Deceptive Practices Act.
Illinois law already allows consumers to file a civil suit for deceptive practices impacting commerce, such as false advertising. This seems very consistent with existing law.
It makes total sense that if I am someone who enjoys going out to restaurants and am vaccinated, I should have a cause of action against someone presenting or providing false vaccination documents to go to restaurants. Even if they do not cause me to be infected by COVID, they are infringing on my ability to enjoy my meals out through fraud.
The Deceptive Practices Act allows for both actual and punitive damages…so the $10K statutory damages seems fine, although I don’t know why a restaurant or venue owner should not be able to sue for much, much more.
PS: might want to expand it to include folks providing or promoting deceptive medical advice related to coronavirus.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:32 pm
By itself, no.
But if there’s any connection to a person using a fake vaxx card and an outbreak, then the faker should be sued into oblivion.
Comment by TJ Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:34 pm
@DuPage -
You might be right about Texas, but i doubt it. This court will let that abortion law stand.
Also, faking vaccination cards is not a Constitutional right.
From Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act:
“ Sec. 2. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”, approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.”
“ (b) In addition to the remedies provided herein, the Attorney General or State’s Attorney may request and the Court may impose a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed $50,000 against any person found by the Court to have engaged in any method, act or practice declared unlawful under this Act. In the event the court finds the method, act or practice to have been entered into with the intent to defraud, the court has the authority to impose a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed $50,000 per violation.”
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 4:44 pm
YES
Comment by The Old Man Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 5:17 pm
Really want to go down this slippery slope? Really want to allow citizens to become policing authorities for any future something a group does not like. Pull the police and local authorities in to do their job. If a local states attorney does not want to enforce fraud law there is a bigger issue going on.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 5:31 pm
If I have a weak immune system, and I go to an event where I am willing to accept some limited risk under the assumption everyone there is vaccinated, and then I get COVID from an idiot who lied about their status, and I then get long haul or die, me or my estate should be able to sue the person who lied.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 5:55 pm
If the death of a person resulted from a covid infection that could absolutley be traced to a certain person I believe there should be criminal penalties.
Comment by flea Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 6:12 pm
==Really want to go down this slippery slope? ==
I think this is a slippery slope worth shining a spotlight on. This bill, and more like it, may be the only way to get SCOTUS to tank the Texas bill. If the Supremes allow the Texas bill to stand, I expect lawmakers on the left and right to mimic the bill for their own pet causes.
It’s a bad bill, but putting a bunch of these on the docket helps to show folks on the political right why the Texas bill is such a bad idea.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 7:05 pm
Seems like a lot of neoliberal energy that should really go towards universal healthcare.
Comment by Biker Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 9:40 pm
The law should go further in imitation of Texas and allow any vaccinated person to sue any unvaccinated person.
Comment by Terrell Monday, Oct 25, 21 @ 10:03 pm
falsifying a government document is a crime, the Texas law is anti-American encourages to the lowest form of citizen vigilantism.
We should not emulate that approach.
Comment by Siriously Tuesday, Oct 26, 21 @ 6:08 am
No - Just because Texas passed a bad law doesn’t mean Illinois should.
Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, Oct 26, 21 @ 8:03 am
Using the civil justice system is appropriate. The criminal justice system is fraught with problems.
Leaving it to the CJS lends itself to all of the racial inequities we see in enforcement and prosecution of drug possession cases (i.e., which communities will the police focus on and where will the arrests be made). I do not see police officers prioritizing these cases (and at the end of the day the cases prosecuted by state’s attorneys are presented to them by the police).
There was a comment of the difficulty of proving damages. This is why the bill proposes to set a minimum damage level of $10,000. If a violation is proven (I would assume the burden of proof would be by a preponderance of the evidence), then the minimum damage award is $10,000 without the need for any additional proofs.
The law also provides for costs and attorneys fees so it makes it a bit easier for people of modest means to retain representation to bring these cases.
The fear of malicious suits brought without any proof and intended to harass may be there (it exists in types of civil actions). The protection built into such a case is that attorneys fees and costs are awarded only when a plaintiff prevails.
Even the Kraken-counsel got paid for her frivolous lawsuits. This anti-mask/anti-vaxx attorney in Illinois isn’t litigating for free either. Lawyers will bring cases IF there is evidence to prove the allegation.
I don’t see this as being too terribly different from employment discrimination suits.
Comment by CommonGood Tuesday, Oct 26, 21 @ 8:14 am