HB105 amends Alabama’s criminal code provisions on enticing a child for immoral purposes, electronic solicitation of a child, and related jurisdiction rules. The bill expands the prohibited conduct to include “grooming” in both in-person and electronic contexts, and it broadens the list of unlawful purposes to include not only sexual acts and sexual conduct, but also sexual performance and genital mutilation. It also clarifies that attempts to engage in these acts are covered, and it defines “groom” as a pattern of behavior intended to prepare, induce, or persuade a child through manipulation, trust-building, influence, gift-giving, physical touching, or indirect methods.
The bill also revises the electronic solicitation statute to make it a Class B felony when a person uses electronic or digital means to entice or groom a child, or a person believed to be a child, to engage in sex offenses, sexual conduct, sexual performance, or genital mutilation. In addition, it updates jurisdiction provisions so that electronic solicitation crimes may be prosecuted in any county where any part of the crime occurred, where the victim or defendant lived, or where images were received. The act is set to take effect on October 1, 2026.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen and modernize Alabama’s child-exploitation laws by explicitly adding grooming language and by extending criminal liability to a wider range of sexual and exploitative conduct. It amends Sections 13A-6-69, 13A-6-122, and 13A-6-126 of the Code of Alabama 1975, increasing the reach of existing offenses and clarifying venue and jurisdiction for digital crimes. Prosecutors would gain broader tools to charge conduct involving online communications, social media, messaging platforms, and other electronic devices.
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition: the bill passed the House of Origin unanimously, with 101 yeas and 0 nays on both the House of Origin passage and third reading, and 99 yeas and 0 nays on the motion to read a third time and pass. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate substantive disagreement.
The main points of contention, based on the text itself, would likely center on the breadth of the new “groom” definition and the expanded jurisdictional reach for electronic solicitation cases. Those changes could raise questions about how broadly the law may be applied and how venue is determined in multi-county or internet-based cases. However, the unanimous votes indicate that, at least in the House, the bill was viewed as a straightforward child-protection measure rather than a controversial criminal-law expansion.
HB105 broadens and clarifies Alabama criminal statutes governing enticing a child for immoral purposes and electronic solicitation of a child. It adds grooming as an express prohibited act, expands the list of covered intended offenses to include sex offenses, sexual conduct, sexual performance, and genital mutilation, and defines grooming in statute. It also expands jurisdiction and venue rules for electronic solicitation cases, allowing prosecution in any county where part of the offense occurred, where the victim or defendant resided, or where images were received. The bill amends Sections 13A-6-69, 13A-6-122, and 13A-6-126 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and takes effect October 1, 2026.
The recorded sentiment is strongly supportive. The bill passed the House of Origin and third reading unanimously, indicating broad agreement with its child-protection purpose and its effort to update the law for online exploitation and grooming behavior. No committee discussion is available, but the voting record suggests minimal or no organized opposition.
The most notable potential contention is the bill’s expanded definition of “groom” and the inclusion of grooming in both physical and electronic solicitation offenses, which could prompt concerns about scope and proof. Another possible issue is the broadened jurisdiction rule for internet-based offenses, which may raise venue and prosecutorial reach questions. No specific opposition is documented in the available materials, and the unanimous votes suggest these issues did not generate visible resistance in the House.