HB 1453 creates a new Florida Statutes section, s. 111.101, to restrict data brokers from disclosing certain personal information about specified public servants and their close family or household members after receiving written notice. The bill is aimed at protecting judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, correctional staff, certain Department of Children and Families and Department of Revenue employees, juvenile justice personnel, public defenders, and related family or household members, as well as certain comparable out-of-state officials who live in Florida. The protected information includes home addresses, home telephone numbers, personal email addresses, Social Security and driver license numbers, vehicle identifiers, and mobile advertising IDs or similar device-tracking identifiers.
Under the bill, a covered person or authorized agent may send a notice to a data broker requesting nondisclosure of protected information. Once the data broker receives notice, it must stop disclosing or redisclosing that information within 10 business days. The bill creates a civil cause of action in circuit court for violations, sets ordinary negligence as the fault standard, and allows recovery of the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages for willful or reckless conduct, attorney fees, costs, and equitable relief. It also states that public availability of the information from other sources is not a defense, and it limits the effect of website terms and conditions on enforcement of these rights.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a targeted privacy and safety regime for public servants by imposing new obligations on data brokers operating in Florida. It does not broadly seal public records, but it does create a separate restriction on data broker disclosure after notice, with enforcement through private litigation. The measure is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of protecting public servants and their families from threats, intimidation, and violence. The findings emphasize that technology has made personal information easier to access and that restricting dissemination is necessary to protect safety and the administration of justice. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between privacy and access to information. Potential concerns include the scope of covered persons and family members, the burden placed on data brokers, the use of private lawsuits and statutory damages, and the bill’s statement that public availability elsewhere does not defeat liability. Another possible issue is that the bill applies to information that may already be available in public records, but it still prohibits data brokers from redisclosing it after notice.
HB 1453 would create s. 111.101, F.S., establishing a new notice-based nondisclosure process for data brokers and a private right of action for covered public servants and certain relatives or household members. It would impose a 10-business-day compliance deadline after notice, authorize damages and attorney fees for violations, and effectively regulate the resale or publication of specified personal data by data brokers without changing the underlying public-record status of the information.
The bill is framed as a public-safety and privacy measure, with legislative findings emphasizing threats, intimidation, and violence against judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and related public servants. Based on the text alone, the sentiment is clearly protective and supportive of the bill’s purpose. No committee discussion or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the materials supplied.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill goes too far in restricting information that may already be publicly available, whether the definition of covered persons and protected information is too broad, and whether the private enforcement mechanism and $1,000-per-violation damages could expose data brokers to significant liability. Another possible dispute is the bill’s treatment of website terms and public-record availability, which limits common defenses and may be viewed as expanding liability beyond traditional privacy law.