Civil Actions - Distribution of Obscene Material to Minors and Age Verification Information
Summary
HB394 creates a new civil cause of action in Maryland for the distribution of obscene material to minors over the internet. It applies to a commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally distributes obscene material from a website containing a substantial portion of obscene content, and requires that entity to use reasonable age-verification methods to confirm that a user is at least 18 years old before granting access. The bill defines key terms such as “commercial entity,” “distribute,” “substantial portion,” “transactional data,” and “reasonable age verification methods,” and it expressly excludes bona fide news or public-interest content and news-gathering employees from its reach.
The bill also restricts the handling of personal information collected during age verification. A commercial entity or third-party verifier may not retain identifying information about an individual after access is granted or denied. If a commercial entity violates the age-verification requirement, a person may sue for damages resulting from a minor’s access to obscene material or from improper retention of identifying information, and a prevailing plaintiff may recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB394 would add new provisions to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by creating Subtitle 26, “Distribution of Obscene Material to Minors,” and by establishing civil liability for certain online distributors of obscene content. It would not impose liability on internet service providers, search engines, or cloud providers solely for providing access or transmission services, and it would preserve protections for news and public-interest content. The bill would also create privacy-related obligations for age-verification vendors by prohibiting retention of identifying information after the verification process.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and privacy bill, with an emphasis on limiting minors’ access to obscene online material while also restricting data retention by verification services.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the scope of the age-verification mandate, the definition of websites containing a “substantial portion” of obscene material, and the privacy implications of requiring users to verify age through government ID or transactional data. Critics may view the bill as burdensome for online publishers and potentially intrusive for adult users, while supporters are likely to emphasize protecting minors from obscene content and limiting retention of sensitive identifying information. The explicit carve-outs for news and public-interest content suggest an effort to address First Amendment and press-freedom concerns.