HB 1503, titled the "Protect Our Children Act," would create a new Florida law requiring manufacturers of tablets and smartphones sold or activated in the state to automatically enable a content filter beginning January 1, 2026. The filter would be designed to block access to material harmful to minors, notify users when content is blocked, allow a password-holder to unblock content, and prevent unauthorized removal or modification. The bill also creates civil and criminal liability for manufacturers that fail to comply when a minor accesses harmful material, and it authorizes the Attorney General and parents or legal guardians to bring enforcement actions and private lawsuits.
Beyond device filtering, the bill expands Florida’s criminal laws related to child exploitation and sexual misconduct. It increases penalties for luring or enticing a child under 12, creates a new offense for harmful communication with a minor, and ranks that offense in the Criminal Punishment Code. It also amends numerous statutes tied to sexual offender registration, public notification, probation, bail, expunction, child custody, school access, and related collateral consequences to incorporate the new offense and updated registration references. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill would add a new section to chapter 501, Florida Statutes, imposing device-manufacturer obligations for built-in minor-content filtering and creating new civil, criminal, and administrative enforcement mechanisms. It would also amend sections 787.025 and 921.0022 and create section 827.12, while revising a broad set of statutes that reference sexual offender and predator registration, public records, child custody, school screening, probation, bail, and expunction rules. In practical terms, it would expand state regulation of consumer electronics, increase criminal exposure for certain online and in-person conduct involving minors, and broaden the downstream legal effects of the new offense and related sexual-offense classifications on affected individuals and institutions.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a strong child-protection focus, with a punitive and preventive approach aimed at both technology companies and adults who communicate with or exploit minors. The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history for this measure, but the bill’s last action indicates it died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee even though a companion bill later passed as CS/HB 777. That suggests the policy concept had some legislative support, but this specific vehicle did not advance through the process.
The most likely points of contention are the device-filter mandate, the scope of manufacturer liability, and the new criminal offense for harmful communication with a minor. Critics could view the filtering requirement as burdensome, technically difficult, or potentially overbroad, especially because liability attaches when a minor accesses harmful material and because the bill allows private suits and AG enforcement. The criminal provisions may also raise concerns about vagueness, free-speech implications, and how broadly "inappropriate relationship" or "pattern of communication" could be applied. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize child safety, parental control, and stronger deterrence against online grooming and exploitation.