Georgia CommonsHouse · Passed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 668: Crimes and offenses; change references to assistance and guide dogs to service dogs
Last action July 1, 2026 · Effective Date
House Bill 668, known as the Mara Jade Act, rewrites Georgia law to replace terms like 'guide dog' and 'assistance dog' with 'service dog,' toughens penalties for harming service dogs, and creates a new crime for faking a disability to use one.
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 Enrolled version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Georgia law currently uses inconsistent terms like 'assistance dog,' 'guide dog,' and 'seeing eye dog' across different code sections, with a patchwork of narrow definitions tied to blindness, deafness, or physical disability. House Bill 668, called the Mara Jade Act, standardizes the term 'service dog' across the criminal code, the disability rights chapter, and the rules of the road, and broadens the definition to cover people with physical or mental impairments rather than only blind, deaf, or physically disabled people. The bill creates tiered criminal offenses for interfering with, harming, or killing a service dog, with penalties ranging from a misdemeanor up to a felony carrying two to ten years in prison for causing a service dog's death or disabling injury. It requires courts to order restitution, including replacement value, for harmed service dogs. It also sets new rules for service dogs in training, including handler control and identification requirements, and creates a new misdemeanor for falsely claiming to need or train a service dog. The bill does not include a stated delayed effective date, so it would take effect under Georgia's standard rules once signed.
What the bill does
- Replaces terms like 'assistance dog,' 'guide dog,' and 'seeing eye dog' with 'service dog' throughout Georgia's criminal code, disability rights law, and rules of the road.
- Creates three tiered offenses for interfering with, harming, or aggravated harming of a service dog, with the most severe carrying a two to ten year prison sentence.
- Requires courts to order restitution to a service dog's owner, including veterinary costs, retraining costs, and full replacement value if the dog dies or can no longer work.
- Broadens who qualifies to use a service dog by replacing narrow categories (blind, deaf, physically disabled) with a single 'physically or mentally impaired person' definition.
- Sets new requirements for service dogs in training, including handler control, notice to business managers, and identifying gear.
- Creates a new misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature for falsely claiming to need or train a service dog to get accommodations.
Who it affects
People who use service dogs for physical or mental impairments, service dog trainers and puppy raisers, business and public accommodation owners who host service dogs, landlords and housing providers, public transit operators, and anyone who harasses, harms, or falsely claims to need a service dog.
Why it matters
Georgians who rely on service dogs would get broader legal recognition covering more disabilities and stronger protection against people who harm or interfere with their dogs, including felony charges and financial restitution. Businesses and trainers would face new rules on identifying and controlling dogs in training, and people who fake a disability to bring a dog into public places could face criminal charges.
Key provisions
- Section 1 names the bill the 'Mara Jade Act.'
- Section 2 rewrites O.C.G.A. § 16-11-107.1 to create three offenses: interfering with a service dog (up to 12 months and $1,000 fine), harming a service dog (misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, 6-12 months and up to $5,000 fine), and aggravated harming causing death or disabling injury (felony, 2-10 years and up to $50,000 fine, with the first two years not eligible for suspension or probation absent a plea agreement).
- Section 2 also adds a restitution requirement covering veterinary expenses, retraining costs, and full replacement value if a service dog dies or can no longer perform its duties.
- Section 4 rewrites the definitions in O.C.G.A. § 30-4-1, replacing 'physically disabled person' with 'physically or mentally impaired person' and adding definitions for 'activities of daily living,' 'owner training,' 'service dog,' and 'trainer.'
- Section 5 revises O.C.G.A. § 30-4-2 to extend service dog access rights to physically or mentally impaired people generally, and adds detailed control, notice, and identification requirements for dogs still in training.
- Section 7 adds a new subsection (b) to O.C.G.A. § 30-4-4 making it a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature to falsely claim to need or train a service dog, punishable by a fine up to $2,000 and up to 30 days confinement.
- Section 8 updates O.C.G.A. § 40-6-94 so drivers must yield to a pedestrian accompanied by a service dog rather than only a 'guide dog.'
From the bill
“A person commits the offense of interfering with a service dog when he or she knows or should have known the dog to be a service dog and intentionally:”
“Any individual who deliberately misrepresents himself or herself as qualified to use a service dog or train or raise service dogs for the purpose of obtaining accommodations or securing rights under this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature”
“'Service dog' means any domestic canine that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks that directly assist a physically or mentally impaired person”
Discussed in meetings (12)
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 Public and Community Health Committee, February 24, 2026
From 0:29:28 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the substitute would align Georgia law with federal service-dog rules, protect service dogs against harassment and physical harm, and strengthen protections for people training their own service dogs. A witness for the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council said revised language would mirror existing protections for police and search-and-rescue dogs, including misdemeanor, high and aggravated misdemeanor, and felony penalties. A committee member asked what qualifies someone as a trainer and whether certification is required. A service-dog owner and trainer said Georgia does not require trainer certification and that the language covers people with disabilities training their own dogs, as well as trainers working through organizations. The witness said obtaining a trained dog through an organization could cost $10,000 to $30,000, depending on the tasks needed. The sponsor and witness said the trainer definition follows federal law. The committee approved the substitute by voice vote, with no opposition heard.
House floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, PM, part 2)
From 1:32:27 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 2160
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 668 would replace inconsistent references to guide and assistance dogs with the term service dog across several areas of Georgia law. The sponsor also said it creates a specific criminal offense for intentionally and knowingly killing or physically harming a service dog. The sponsor described service dogs as essential to people with disabilities and said training can take two or more years and cost more than $25,000. A supporting member said the bill broadens protections beyond people who are blind, deaf or physically disabled, and described service dogs' roles in mobility assistance, allergy detection and support for psychiatric disabilities. No opposing speech was offered. The House adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 168-0.
House Rules Committee, March 6, 2026
From 0:44:01 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 2139
Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee placed HB 668 on the day’s supplemental floor calendar under modified structure following a motion and second, with no opposition stated. No substantive discussion occurred.
Senate Public Safety Committee, March 16, 2026
From 0:09:07 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 668 would standardize service-dog terminology, create tiered penalties for harming service dogs and address false representation. The sponsor said emotional-support animals were excluded. A service-dog trainer and a disability-rights advocate described attacks by dogs falsely presented as service animals and the resulting threats to independence. They supported broader protections, including for dogs in training and owner-trained dogs. Asked about certification, the trainer said federal law requires none and permits owner training. A prosecutor said the state would have to prove a dog's status through evidence of training and tasks. A Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers witness supported protection but requested narrower intent language to avoid criminalizing unintended harm. A Prosecuting Attorneys' Council witness cautioned against narrowing the felony provision. After a pause for negotiations, the committee adopted amendments replacing remaining references to service animals with service dogs and revising intent language in two provisions, while retaining the disputed felony language. Members confirmed that retention before the final vote. The committee unanimously approved the amended substitute and sent it to the Senate Rules Committee.
Senate Rules Committee, March 20, 2026
From 0:27:58 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would modernize Georgia’s service dog laws by aligning them with federal law. No substantive questions or calendar decision followed.
Senate Rules Committee, March 23, 2026
From 0:32:04 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair said HB 668 would change references to assistance and guide dogs. A committee member emphasized its importance for guide dogs, and another comment mentioned service dogs. No further details or vote were shown.
Senate floor session, March 27, 2026 (legislative day 38)
From 7:14:45 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Tabled)
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 668 would update references to service dogs, distinguish them from emotional support animals, create penalties and restitution for harming or killing service dogs, and penalize knowingly misrepresenting a dog as a service dog. The sponsor said trained service dogs can cost up to $50,000 and described a service dog blinded in an attack by a dog incorrectly presented as a service animal. The sponsor said an amendment named the measure after that service dog and included changes recommended by a disability-law attorney. A second amendment corrected the committee name in the first amendment. Both amendments passed without objection. No substantive questions or opposition followed. The Senate adopted the substitute as amended and passed the bill 47-0.
House floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 2)
From 3:01:05 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (House Agreed Senate Amend or Sub)
Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said the Senate added a short title honoring the injured service dog whose experience prompted the legislation. The presenter also described changing four references from service animal to service dog. No members asked questions. The House agreed to the Senate substitute, 168 to 0, then recognized an advocate who had attended the bill's earlier consideration.
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 25, 2026 (legislative day 24), 0:45:31
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 9, 2026 (legislative day 29), 0:26:15
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 18, 2026 (legislative day 33), 0:33:01
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 19, 2026 (legislative day 34), 0:43:41
Status timeline
- Effective Date
- Act 440
- House Date Signed by Governor (House)
- House Sent to Governor (House)
- House Agreed Senate Amend or Sub (House)
- Senate Passed/Adopted By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
Show full history (21 actions)
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- House Passed/Adopted By Substitute (House)
- House Third Readers (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Brad Thomas (R, HD-21)
- Devan Seabaugh (R, HD-34)
- Dale Washburn (R, HD-144)
- Derrick McCollum (R, HD-30)
- Katie Dempsey (R, HD-13)
- Darlene Taylor (R, HD-173)
- Kay Kirkpatrick (R, SD-32)
Votes
- House voteMarch 6, 2026
168 yea, 0 nay (1 not voting, 8 excused)
- Senate voteMarch 27, 2026
26 yea, 22 nay (3 not voting, 3 excused)
- Senate voteMarch 27, 2026
47 yea, 0 nay (2 not voting, 5 excused)
- House voteMarch 31, 2026
168 yea, 0 nay (1 not voting, 7 excused)
Topics
- service dogs
- disability rights
- animal cruelty penalties
- public accommodations
- criminal law