HB 843 creates the “Sexual Assault Survivor Empowerment and Privacy Protection Act” and adds a new provision to Louisiana’s public records law. The bill is aimed at protecting the privacy of victims of sexual offenses by allowing a “protected individual” to request that a public body or third party stop publishing, or remove, the individual’s personal information from existing online publications. The request must be made in writing and include enough identifying information to verify the requester and locate the publication at issue.
The bill defines protected individuals as victims of sexual offenses and defines personal information broadly to include home and mobile phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account information, license plate numbers, marital records, date of birth, and certain location-related information about family members. Public bodies must acknowledge a request within five days and remove already-published information within 72 hours, while third parties must remove the information within 72 hours and notify the requester. The bill also allows requests to cover certain household members’ information, but it does not apply to records publicly posted by the secretary of state’s office.
HB 843 also creates enforcement mechanisms. A protected individual may seek mandamus, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney fees against a public body, and may seek damages against a third party for violations. In addition, the bill makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly publish a protected individual’s personal information when the publisher knows or should know that doing so poses an imminent and serious threat and results in assault, harassment, trespass, or malicious destruction of property. Public bodies are exempt from the criminal penalty provision.
The bill’s impact would be to expand privacy protections for sexual assault survivors and impose new compliance duties on government agencies and private publishers that maintain online records or postings. It would likely affect public records practices, online docketing or registry systems, and any third-party websites that republish court or government information containing covered personal details. The measure would also create potential civil liability and criminal exposure for certain harmful disclosures.
The overall sentiment appears supportive of the bill’s stated purpose of protecting survivors’ privacy, but the available record does not include committee debate or vote details. The only procedural note provided is that a substitute was adopted on the House floor and the measure became HB 1012, suggesting the original bill was revised or folded into another bill. No specific opposition or controversy is documented in the supplied materials, though the bill’s limits on publication, short removal deadlines, and criminal penalty for certain disclosures could be areas of concern for public bodies, media, or third-party publishers.
HB 843 would add R.S. 44:24 to Louisiana’s public records law, creating a new privacy-removal process for victims of sexual offenses and imposing duties on public bodies and third parties to stop publishing or to remove covered personal information. It would also authorize civil remedies and attorney fees, and create a misdemeanor offense for certain knowing disclosures that lead to specified harms, while exempting public bodies from the criminal penalty. The bill expressly preserves publication from records posted by the secretary of state’s office.
The available context suggests the bill was generally framed as a victim-protection and privacy measure, with no recorded committee testimony or roll-call votes showing opposition or support. The fact that a substitute was adopted on the House floor and the measure became HB 1012 indicates the proposal moved forward in altered form, but the supplied record does not show the degree of consensus or any formal controversy. Overall, the sentiment in the text is protective and remedial, centered on survivor privacy and safety.
Potential points of contention include the breadth of the personal information covered, the requirement that public bodies and third parties remove information within 72 hours, and the creation of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance or harmful publication. Public records advocates, media organizations, website operators, and government agencies could view the bill as imposing operational burdens or limiting access to information, while victim advocates would likely support the privacy protections. The bill’s exception for secretary of state records and its exemption of public bodies from criminal penalties may also be relevant points of discussion.