Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 211: PFAS Receiver Shield Act; enact
Last action February 11, 2026 · House Withdrawn, Recommitted
A Georgia House bill would shield businesses and other entities that use, receive, or dispose of PFAS chemicals (sometimes called 'forever chemicals') from most lawsuits over PFAS harm, unless a plaintiff can prove gross negligence.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
PFAS are a group of long-lasting industrial chemicals, often called 'forever chemicals,' found in products like nonstick cookware, firefighting foam, and packaging. This bill adds a new chapter to Georgia's tort law creating legal immunity for 'PFAS receivers,' meaning businesses or people who use PFAS in manufacturing or agriculture, buy or own PFAS-containing goods, or handle PFAS-laced waste under state environmental permits. Under the bill, a PFAS receiver cannot be sued for damages related to its use, receipt, or disposal of PFAS unless the person suing proves 'gross negligence' with specific facts, a legal standard a judge decides rather than a jury. Receivers that comply with EPA and Georgia Environmental Protection Division rules on disposal into landfills or wastewater systems get an even broader shield. The immunity does not apply to enforcement actions by the state's Environmental Protection Division, does not block wrongful death claims, and does not remove any duty to warn the public of safety threats. The law would take effect as soon as the Governor signs it.
What the bill does
- Creates a new legal shield in Georgia's tort law (O.C.G.A. Title 51) protecting 'PFAS receivers' from most lawsuits over PFAS-related harm.
- Requires anyone suing a PFAS receiver to prove 'gross negligence' with specific facts, and makes that determination a legal question for a judge rather than a jury.
- Gives an added layer of immunity to PFAS receivers who fully comply with EPA and Georgia Environmental Protection Division rules when disposing of PFAS waste into landfills or wastewater systems.
- Extends the same immunity to environmental engineers and consultants who advise PFAS receivers on handling PFAS.
- Exempts the state's Environmental Protection Division from the immunity when it is enforcing environmental regulations, and preserves wrongful death claims and any duty to warn the public.
- Clarifies the new chapter does not override existing Georgia criminal law, health law, workers' compensation law, or emergency management law.
Who it affects
Manufacturers and farmers who use PFAS in production, businesses that buy or own products containing PFAS, waste and wastewater facilities permitted by the Environmental Protection Division, environmental consultants who advise them, and Georgians who might sue over PFAS-related injury or property damage.
Why it matters
People harmed by PFAS contamination, sometimes linked to health problems, would face a higher legal bar to win a lawsuit against businesses that used, received, or disposed of the chemicals, since they would have to prove gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence to recover damages.
Key provisions
- Section 2 adds new Chapter 17 to Title 51, defining PFAS, PFAS monomers, PFAS substances, PFAS manufacturers, and PFAS receivers in detail (O.C.G.A. § 51-17-1).
- O.C.G.A. § 51-17-2(a)(1) bars liability claims against PFAS receivers absent gross negligence, requiring plaintiffs to plead specific facts and making the gross-negligence finding a legal question decided by a judge.
- O.C.G.A. § 51-17-2(a)(2) grants broader immunity for PFAS receivers that comply with EPA and Georgia Environmental Protection Division testing and disposal limits.
- O.C.G.A. § 51-17-2(b) excludes Environmental Protection Division enforcement actions from the immunity and extends the same protection to environmental consultants advising PFAS receivers.
- O.C.G.A. § 51-17-2(c) preserves the right to sue for wrongful death and preserves any legal duty to warn the public of safety threats.
- O.C.G.A. § 51-17-3 states the new chapter does not modify Georgia's criminal law, health law, workers' compensation law, or emergency management law.
- Section 3 makes the Act effective immediately upon the Governor's signature or upon becoming law without signature.
From the bill
“Absent gross negligence, no PFAS receiver shall be held liable for damages in an action involving a liability claim arising from or related to its intended or incidental use, receipt, or disposal of PFAS.”
“To negate the immunity provided for in this Code section, a plaintiff shall plead facts with particularity sufficient to demonstrate gross negligence, and the determination of whether such conduct constitutes gross negligence shall be a question of law decided by the court.”
“No PFAS receiver shall be held liable for damages in an action involving a liability claim arising from or related to its handling of PFAS substances, including disposal of industrial effluent into waste-water treatment facilities and of solid waste from PFAS substances into public landfills where such PFAS receiver has complied with all testing and met all limits”
Discussed in meetings (3)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Judiciary Committee, February 9, 2026
From 0:35:57 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter offered a committee substitute to HB 211 establishing a gross negligence standard for PFAS receivers. The presenter described the proposal as balancing injured individuals’ ability to seek compensation with legal protections for receivers. One committee member objected that members and the public were seeing the substitute for the first time without an opportunity for public testimony. The presenter said no groups were consulted on the substitute, but that earlier testimony informed the language and that concerns could still be raised as the bill advanced. A second member questioned a definition that used gross negligence within its own definition, the meaning of quasi-criminal conduct, and what laws or rules currently govern PFAS. The presenter said the language drew on a common-law standard and was intended to cover deliberate concealment. The presenter cited EPA, Georgia EPD and chemical-handling guidance, but could not identify relevant court decisions. The first member renewed the objection to proceeding without public comment. The committee approved the substitute by voice vote, with opposition heard, and the chair said it would go to Rules.
House Rules Committee, February 11, 2026
From 0:47:41 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee agreed to recommit HB 211 to the Judiciary Committee after a motion and second. No opposition was voiced, and there was no substantive discussion.
Status timeline
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Kasey Carpenter (R, HD-4)
- Jason Ridley (R, HD-6)
- Steve Tarvin (R, HD-2)
- Matt Barton (R, HD-5)
Topics
- PFAS chemicals
- forever chemicals
- tort liability
- environmental law
- product liability