Prohibiting the malicious doxing of personal information
S1108 would create a new civil cause of action in Massachusetts for “malicious doxing” of personal information. The bill defines doxing-related terms and allows a person to sue in Superior Court when another person knowingly disseminates personal information without consent and does so with malicious intent to cause, aid, encourage, or facilitate harassment, stalking, death, or bodily injury. To qualify, the disclosure must pose an imminent and serious safety threat, result in harassment or stalking, or be such that a reasonable person would fear those harms.
The bill defines “personal information” narrowly to include identifying information such as a home address, phone number, Social Security number, email address, or school or employment location, including information about a family member. It also directs courts to consider whether the disclosure was combined with other sensitive information, including race, immigration status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, health conditions, or whether the person is seeking or providing gender-affirming or reproductive health care services. Prevailing plaintiffs could recover actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and other equitable relief, and liability would be joint and several among responsible parties.
If enacted, the bill would amend Chapter 214 of the General Laws by adding a new Section 3C creating a private civil remedy for malicious doxing. It would expand Massachusetts civil law by giving victims a direct path to seek damages and injunctive relief for harmful disclosures of personal information, while also setting a two-year statute of limitations and excluding liability for certain internet, telecommunications, cable, and related service providers acting in their provider capacity. The bill also includes carve-outs for reporting suspected unlawful conduct, constitutionally protected speech and assembly, and petitioning activity.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall posture appears protective of privacy and personal safety, with the proposal framed as a response to harmful online harassment and threats. The bill’s structure suggests a strong intent to provide remedies for victims of targeted abuse, especially where disclosures are linked to stalking, violence, or intimidation. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show opposition or support from legislators or stakeholders.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the new civil liability and its interaction with free speech, reporting, and petitioning rights. The bill attempts to limit overbreadth by requiring malicious intent and a serious safety-related harm, and by exempting lawful reporting and protected expressive activity, but critics could still argue that the definitions of personal information and the references to sensitive topics such as immigration status, sexual orientation, and reproductive or gender-affirming care may raise First Amendment or chilling-effect concerns. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s provider exemptions are sufficient to avoid imposing liability on online platforms and communications carriers.