A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Summary
HB 1085 creates a new civil cause of action in Indiana for victims of child sexual abuse material and for individuals exposed to obscene material on the internet. The bill allows a person depicted in prohibited material, or a parent or guardian on behalf of a minor, to sue a person who knowingly or intentionally allows access to, facilitates access to, disseminates, or acts as an information content provider for that material on an interactive computer service. It also authorizes the attorney general to seek injunctive relief against violators.
The bill defines “prohibited material” to include child sexual abuse material and obscene material, and it sets out limited exceptions for newspapers/news services and for internet service providers that only provide access or connection and do not control the content. It also includes a safe-harbor concept for service providers that remove or block access in good faith after learning of prohibited material. The bill expressly removes certain tort claims immunities and eliminates the need to exhaust administrative remedies for actions brought under the new chapter.
Impact
HB 1085 would add a new chapter to Indiana Code chapter 34-24-6, expanding civil remedies related to online child sexual abuse material and obscene material. It also amends Indiana’s comparative fault statute to make clear that contributory fault rules do not apply to actions brought under the new chapter, and it overrides tort claims immunities for these cases. In practice, the bill would expose content providers, platform operators, and others who knowingly facilitate or disseminate prohibited material to damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief, while giving victims and the attorney general additional enforcement tools.
Sentiment
The bill’s overall posture is strongly protective of victims and focused on holding online actors accountable for harmful material. Even without recorded committee debate or votes, the structure of the bill suggests a law-enforcement and victim-remedy emphasis, with broad civil remedies and attorney general enforcement authority. The inclusion of safe-harbor language for prompt removal indicates an attempt to balance enforcement with compliance incentives for service providers.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to center on the scope of liability for internet platforms and content providers, especially the bill’s treatment of “information content providers,” its inclusion of algorithms and artificial intelligence in the definition, and the extent to which platforms can be liable for material they learn about through notice or oversight. Another likely issue is the bill’s carve-outs from tort immunity and comparative fault rules, which could be viewed as expanding exposure for defendants. Supporters would likely emphasize victim access to remedies and deterrence, while critics may raise concerns about overbreadth, platform liability, and potential conflicts with federal internet-intermediary protections.