WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3326

Bad faith copyright infringement

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bill Chumley and 1 co-sponsor

South Carolina bill makes bad-faith copyright demand letters an unlawful trade practice, enabling civil remedies, bonds, and penalties to deter abusive claims and protect targets.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3326

Note: the materials you provided include text from two different bills in different jurisdictions. Below I summarize both separately so you can review each. Tell me which one you want expanded, or if you intended only one of these.

Summary — House Bill H.3326 (Massachusetts) — “An Act designating Diwali Day as a state holiday”

Purpose / Intent

To designate the 15th day of Kartik (a date in the Hindu lunisolar calendar) as “Diwali Day,” recognized as a state holiday in Massachusetts and to direct the governor to annually proclaim and recommend its observance as a period of special attention in recognition of the Festival of Lights.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new section to Chapter 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
  • Requires the governor to annually issue a proclamation designating the 15th day of Kartik as the official Diwali Day.
  • Establishes the day as a state holiday and recommends its observance by the people in recognition of Diwali, described as a five-day festival whose third day is a day of thanksgiving and reflection.

Who/what is affected

  • State government: designation as a state holiday could affect calendar, proclamations, ceremonial recognition, and potentially state office schedules (the text orders proclamation/recognition but does not explicitly detail closures, pay/leave changes for state employees).
  • Residents and communities: formal recognition affirms cultural and religious recognition for Hindu and South Asian communities in Massachusetts.
  • State agencies and schools: may adopt observances or acknowledge the day in official calendars depending on administrative practice.

Legislative status & sponsors

  • Filed: 01/14/2025 (House Docket No. 996 / House No. 3326)
  • Introduced by Rep. Rodney M. Elliott; cosponsors Estela A. Reyes, Natalie M. Higgins, James C. Arena-DeRosa.
  • Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry (also noted referral to State Administration and Regulatory Oversight in docket text).
  • Other recorded actions: introduced/read first time 01/14/2025; hearing scheduled 05/13/2025; reporting date extended to 12/03/2025; Senate concurred (date entries inconsistent).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Symbolic recognition and increased visibility for Diwali statewide.
  • Practical impacts (office closures, pay/leave) depend on follow-up administrative rules or parallel provisions; bill text focuses on proclamation and recommendation rather than specifying employee leave or school closures.

Summary — Model/Related Text: South Carolina draft — “Bad faith assertion of copyright infringement” (proposed S.C. Code § 39‑5‑190)

Purpose / Intent

To make bad-faith assertions of copyright infringement an unlawful trade practice under South Carolina consumer-protection law, establish evidentiary factors for courts, and create civil remedies and procedural tools to deter abusive demand-letter/enforcement practices.

Key provisions

  • Defines “demand letter” (any communication asserting copyright infringement) and “Target” (SC person or entity receiving such a demand or whose customers received one).
  • Declares it an unlawful trade practice to make a bad-faith assertion of copyright infringement (violation of S.C. Code § 39‑5‑20).
  • Lists factors courts may consider as evidence of bad faith (examples):
    • Demand letters that fail to provide copyright registration number/certification, owner/assignee info, and factual specifics of the alleged infringement.
    • Failure to perform or to provide, within 15 days of request, an analysis comparing the claimed copyright to the Target’s materials.
    • Demands for payment or response within 15 days; meritless or deceptive claims; repeated deficient threats/lawsuits.
  • Lists factors indicating good faith (provides required information, responds within 15 days, conducts good-faith analysis/negotiation, prior lawful enforcement history, institutions of higher education exception).
  • Court procedures:
    • If Target shows reasonable likelihood of bad faith, court may require the claimant to post bond (not to exceed $250,000) conditioned on payment of amounts later determined due.
    • Bond can be waived for demonstrated assets or other good cause.
  • Enforcement & remedies:
    • Attorney General may act; private right of action for Targets or aggrieved persons.
    • Remedies: equitable relief, actual damages, costs and fees (including attorneys’ fees), punitive damages equal to $50,000 or three times total damages/costs/fees (whichever greater).
    • Separate provision allows treble damages or up to $50,000 if violation is willful; attorneys’ fees and costs may also be awarded.
  • Effective upon governor’s approval.

Who/what is affected

  • Entities and individuals sending copyright demand letters in South Carolina (rightsholders, law firms, rights-enforcement services).
  • Businesses, creators, and consumers in South Carolina who receive demands — gives them statutory protections and remedies.
  • Courts and Attorney General — additional enforcement and procedural duties.
  • Potentially technology platforms and intermediaries depending on application.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Intended to deter abusive or opportunistic “copyright trolling” and provide clear evidentiary standards to protect targets.
  • Could increase compliance costs for legitimate rights holders (require provision of registration/certification and analyses).
  • Bond and punitive damages provisions create significant financial deterrents; may reduce frivolous claims but could also chill some legitimate enforcement absent careful drafting/implementation.

If you want a single, expanded briefing (legal implications, legislative strategy, comparisons, or advocacy talking points) on one of these bills, tell me which one.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.