County Boards of Education - Student Personal Electronic Device Use Policy - Establishment (Phones Away for the School Day Act)
HB0755 prohibits cooperative housing corporations, condominium associations, and homeowners associations from making access to certain shared recreational common areas contingent on a person providing specified sensitive information. The bill applies to members, unit owners, lot owners, occupants, and their guests or children when they seek to use areas such as reading lounges, game rooms, playgrounds, and swimming pools.
The bill defines “sensitive information” broadly to include Social Security numbers/cards, ITINs, birth certificates, racial or ethnic origin, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, religious or philosophical beliefs, and medical records. It expressly excludes government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license, from that definition. The measure adds parallel provisions to the laws governing cooperatives, condominiums, and homeowners associations, and takes effect October 1, 2025.
HB0755 amends three separate Maryland statutory frameworks: the Corporations and Associations Article for cooperative housing corporations, and the Real Property Article provisions governing condominiums and homeowners associations. It creates a new prohibition on requiring sensitive personal information as a condition of entry to or use of recreational common areas, limiting what community associations may demand from residents and their guests in connection with amenity access. The bill does not ban all identification checks, but it narrows the information associations may collect and may affect existing access-control, registration, or amenity-signup practices in common ownership communities.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate for HB0755, so there is no documented public discussion to gauge support or opposition. Based on the enacted text, the bill appears aimed at privacy protection and reducing unnecessary collection of personal data in residential communities, which suggests a generally consumer-protective intent. Because the bill was enacted, the overall legislative outcome was favorable, but the provided materials do not show whether there was any substantive controversy during consideration.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between resident privacy and association administration or security. Community associations may argue they need some form of identification or screening to manage pool access, guest lists, or amenity rules, while supporters would likely emphasize that collecting highly sensitive data—such as immigration status, religious beliefs, or medical records—is unnecessary and intrusive. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of sensitive information, which reaches beyond financial identifiers to personal characteristics and protected-status information, but the record provided does not show any specific objections or amendments.