FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 29, 2025
Leading Business Groups Oppose Sweeping Legal Overreach
Proposed Bill Would Expand Jurisdiction, Invite More Lawsuits Against Out-of-State Companies
SPRINGFIELD – Illinois’ business community is united in opposition to proposed legislation that would drastically expand Illinois’ jurisdictional reach. House Amendment #2 to SB 26 would expose out-of-state companies to lawsuits in Illinois courts—even when the underlying claims and parties have no connection to the state.
“This last-minute request of trial lawyers represents a significant and concerning expansion of liability for out-of-state businesses operating in Illinois. The amendment would change Illinois from a ‘specific jurisdiction’ to a ‘general jurisdiction’ state, making any company simply registered to do business here subject to lawsuits that have no connection to Illinois—filed by plaintiffs who may have no ties to our state, on matters that occurred elsewhere. This proposal is rooted in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., which opened the door for states to adopt so-called ‘consent-by-registration’ laws. While the Court found such laws do not violate due process, the decision left it to individual states to determine their own approach. Illinois should be cautious about taking a path that could make our courts a national magnet for toxic tort litigation. When similar legislation passed in New York last year, it was ultimately vetoed by Governor Kathy Hochul, who recognized the risks of such a sweeping policy. We urge lawmakers to reject this amendment and instead support policies that promote fairness, protect due process, and encourage businesses to invest and grow in Illinois.”
An excerpt of New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s (D) veto message (Veto #147) is below:
“I vetoed substantially similar legislation in 2021 due to concerns that the proposal would represent a massive expansion of New Yorks’s laws governing general jurisdiction, likely deterring out-of-state companies from doing business in New York because it would require them to be subject to lawsuits in the State regardless of any connection to New York. The bill would cause uncertainty for those businesses and burden the judicial system.”
##
