Good Samaritan Menstrual Products Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 20, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to increase the availability of menstrual products for underserved populations by providing liability protection for good faith donations and distributions.
What it actually does
This bill establishes civil and criminal liability protections for individuals, manufacturers, distributors, and nonprofit organizations that donate or distribute 'apparently usable' menstrual products in good faith to those in need. It includes an explicit exception for acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, ensuring accountability for severe lapses in care. The aim is to remove legal barriers that might deter donations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation will encourage greater donations of menstrual products by alleviating legal concerns that currently deter potential donors, including manufacturers and distributors. They contend that by reducing perceived risks, more essential products will reach individuals experiencing period poverty, improving public health and dignity. The 'good faith' and 'apparently usable' clauses, along with the gross negligence exception, are highlighted as crucial safeguards.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that existing 'Good Samaritan' laws already offer sufficient liability protection for charitable donations, making this bill potentially redundant. Some may also express concern that, despite the safeguards, the bill could inadvertently reduce the perceived accountability for product quality, or that the focus should be on direct funding solutions rather than liability shields.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a) and 2(b)
Liability Protection for Donors and Nonprofits
This provision grants civil and criminal liability protection to individuals, manufacturers, distributors, and nonprofit organizations. It shields them from legal responsibility for issues related to the 'nature, age, packaging, or condition' of menstrual products they donate or distribute in good faith, provided the products are 'apparently usable' and intended for individuals in need. This aims to reduce the legal risk associated with charitable giving.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this protection is essential for encouraging donations by removing a significant legal barrier that might otherwise deter companies and individuals from contributing surplus or near-expiration products. They emphasize that this ensures good intentions are not penalized, thereby increasing the supply of crucial items.
Critics contend
Some might contend that existing 'Good Samaritan' laws or general liability principles already provide adequate protection for such donations, making this specific legislation redundant. Others could express concern that, even with the 'gross negligence' exception, it might slightly reduce the perceived accountability for product quality, though the 'apparently usable' definition aims to mitigate this.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between encouraging charitable acts and maintaining a standard of care for product safety. It seeks to foster generosity while providing a clear framework for when liability protection applies, balancing the interests of donors, distributors, and recipients.
Section 2(c)
Gross Negligence and Intentional Misconduct Exception
This subsection explicitly states that the liability protections provided in the bill do not apply if an injury or death to a user or recipient of a menstrual product results from 'gross negligence or intentional misconduct' by the donor, manufacturer, distributor, or nonprofit organization. This ensures that severe carelessness or deliberate harmful actions remain subject to legal consequences.
Defines 'apparently usable' as a product that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, even if the product may not be readily marketable.
Section 3(2)
Why it matters:Placing definitions at the end is standard legislative practice, but the specific criteria for 'apparently usable' are central to the bill's practical application.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition is critical for ensuring that donated products, while potentially not retail-ready, are still safe and compliant with all regulatory standards. It prevents the distribution of genuinely unsafe items while allowing for the donation of products that might be cosmetically imperfect or near expiration but otherwise safe and effective.
Case against: Critics might suggest that 'not readily marketable' could be interpreted broadly, potentially allowing for the donation of products that are significantly degraded in quality, even if technically compliant with minimum standards. However, the explicit requirement to meet 'all quality and labeling standards' aims to mitigate this concern.
Estimated impact: This definition ensures a baseline quality for all donated menstrual products, protecting recipients from substandard items and providing clear guidance for donors and nonprofits on what can be safely donated and distributed.