individual or entity was not making reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the mandatory standards and regulations to which the individual or entity was subject. (2) Written or published policy (A) In general If an individual or entity engaged in businesses, services, activities, or accommodations maintained a written or published policy on the mitigation of transmission of coronavirus at the time of the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus that complied with, or was more protective than, the applicable government standards and guidance to which the individual or entity was subject, the individual or entity shall be presumed to have made reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance for purposes of subsection (a)(1). (B) Rebuttal The plaintiff may rebut the presumption under subparagraph (A) by establishing that the individual or entity was not complying with the written or published policy at the time of the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus. (C) Absence of a written or published policy The absence of a written or published policy shall not give rise to a presumption that the individual or entity did not make reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance for purposes of subsection (a)(1). (3) Timing For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a change to a policy or practice by an individual or entity before or after the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus, shall not be evidence of liability for the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus. (c) Third parties No individual or entity shall be held liable in a coronavirus exposure action for the acts or omissions of a third party, unless— (1) the individual or entity had an obligation under general common law principles to control the acts or omissions of the third party