Texas Senate Bill SB 816

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 1/16/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 4/23/25
• Voted on by Senate: 4/29/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/23/25

Caption

Relating to authorizing the disclosure of certain electronic customer data by a provider of an electronic communications service or a remote computing service in certain immediate life-threatening situations.

Summary

SB 816 amends Texas criminal procedure law to create a narrow exception allowing providers of electronic communications services and remote computing services to disclose electronic customer data to law enforcement in certain immediate life-threatening situations. The disclosure is permitted only when the provider, acting in good faith, believes there is an immediate threat requiring urgent release of the data to help prevent death or serious bodily injury, and when an alert has already been issued under the state’s alert systems in Chapter 411 of the Government Code for the threatened person. The bill also updates existing confidentiality and immunity provisions in Chapter 18B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It preserves the general rule that providers may not divulge stored communications except as otherwise authorized, and it adds a new no-cause-of-action provision protecting providers and their personnel from civil liability for disclosures made under the new emergency authority. The changes apply only to disclosures made on or after the bill’s effective date, September 1, 2025.

Impact

SB 816 would modify Chapter 18B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by adding Article 18B.5025 and revising related disclosure and liability provisions. It expands the circumstances under which electronic communications providers and cloud/remote computing providers may share customer data with law enforcement, but only in tightly defined emergency circumstances tied to an existing state alert. The bill affects service providers, law enforcement agencies, and customers whose electronic data may be disclosed during urgent missing-person or imminent-harm situations.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received generally favorably, as reflected by strong Senate vote margins and advancement to the House General State Calendar. The recorded votes show broad support with only a small number of dissenting votes, suggesting the measure was viewed as a targeted public-safety tool rather than a major expansion of law-enforcement authority. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support more clearly than debate.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between emergency public-safety needs and privacy protections for electronic communications. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need for rapid access to digital data when a person faces imminent death or serious bodily injury, while critics may worry about the breadth of the “good faith” standard, the role of law enforcement, and the privacy implications of allowing disclosure without a court order in emergency cases. The bill’s requirement that an alert already be issued narrows the exception, but it may also raise questions about whether the trigger is too restrictive or whether it sufficiently guards against misuse.