§ 96.003.Proof

One sentence directing how the falsity element is assessed.

In determining if information is false, the trier of fact shall consider whether the information was based on reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data.

The direction is mandatory but not exclusive. The fact-finder shall consider the scientific basis; the section does not make it the only consideration or say what weight it carries.

Three alternative foundations are named — scientific inquiry, facts, or data — so a statement grounded in any of them has support the section directs the fact-finder to weigh.

The provision protects the person who relies on published research, a regulatory finding, or a documented outbreak. Information with that grounding is difficult to characterise as known falsehood.

Note what it does not do. It does not create a safe harbour, and it does not shift the burden. The liability section still requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant knew the information was false, and this section addresses only how the falsity of the information is assessed.

Read together the two sections make the claim hard to prove: the plaintiff must show the statement was false, that its scientific grounding was inadequate, and that the defendant knew it was false when they made it.