An Act Making Certain Terms In Electronic Book And Digital Audiobook License Agreements Or Contracts Unenforceable.
HB 6958 would regulate certain contract and license terms used by libraries when they acquire electronic books and digital audiobooks from publishers. Beginning July 1, 2026, and only for new or renewed agreements, the bill bars libraries from agreeing to terms that would prevent ordinary lending functions, such as loaning digital materials, using interlibrary loan systems, making preservation copies, or sharing contract terms with other libraries in the state. It also prohibits clauses that would limit a library’s ability to purchase licenses when a title is first released to the public, restrict contract duration unless the library has a commercially reasonable alternative such as pay-per-use or perpetual access, require violations of existing state law, make prohibited terms inseverable, or force enforcement outside a judicial forum.
The bill defines key terms such as electronic book, digital audiobook, library, publisher, aggregator, borrower, loan, and technological protection measure. It preserves some publisher controls, allowing agreements to limit simultaneous users and to use reasonable digital protections that prevent access beyond the loan period or prevent one borrower from blocking access for others. The measure is aimed at ensuring that libraries retain customary circulation and preservation functions in the digital environment while still permitting access-management tools.
In practical terms, the bill would affect libraries, publishers, and aggregators that contract for digital literary materials in Connecticut. It would create a new statutory rule governing future library-publisher agreements and make certain restrictive license provisions unenforceable as a matter of state law. Because it applies only to contracts entered into or renewed on or after the effective date, it is prospective rather than retroactive.
The available voting history suggests strong support in committee: the Planning and Development Committee reported the bill favorably with a 20-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate public disagreement in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively as a library access and digital lending measure.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between library access and publisher licensing control. Libraries and advocates for digital access would likely support the bill’s limits on restrictive contract terms, while publishers and some rights holders may object to state interference with private licensing arrangements, especially provisions affecting loan limits, contract duration, preservation copying, and disclosure of terms. The bill attempts to accommodate both sides by allowing simultaneous-use caps and technological protection measures.
The bill would add a new section to the general statutes governing library contracts for electronic literary materials, making specified restrictive terms unenforceable in future or renewed agreements starting July 1, 2026. It would directly affect public, school, academic, research, and state libraries, as well as publishers and aggregators that license e-books and digital audiobooks to libraries. The measure would not change ownership of copyrighted works, but it would limit the enforceability of certain license provisions and establish baseline rights for library lending, preservation, interlibrary loan, and contract transparency.
The committee vote indicates clear support for the bill, with a unanimous 20-0 Joint Favorable recommendation from the Planning and Development Committee. No transcript material was provided, but the vote suggests the proposal was not controversial at the committee stage. Based on the bill’s structure, the general sentiment appears favorable toward protecting library digital lending functions while preserving some publisher safeguards.
The central tension is between library autonomy in digital lending and publishers’ ability to set licensing terms. Supporters are likely to argue that libraries should not be blocked from lending e-books and audiobooks, making preservation copies, or sharing contract terms, while opponents may contend that the bill intrudes on private contract negotiations and could reduce publishers’ control over pricing, access limits, and distribution models. The bill partially addresses these concerns by allowing limits on simultaneous users and reasonable technological protection measures, but it still prohibits a range of restrictive clauses that publishers may view as essential to their business model.