HB670 creates a new civil cause of action for recipients of unsolicited obscene images or videos sent by electronic means. The bill defines “obscene material” using the familiar constitutional obscenity standard and specifically includes certain sexual acts and depictions of exposed genitals or anus. It also defines “unsolicited” to mean the recipient did not consent to, or expressly forbade, receiving the image or video.
Under the bill, a person may not knowingly send an unsolicited obscene image or video to another person if the sender knows or reasonably should know it is unsolicited. A person who suffers harm from receiving such material may sue for economic and noneconomic damages, including emotional distress. If the recipient expressly forbade the material, the bill allows additional statutory damages of $1,500 to $30,000, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, injunctive relief, and any other available relief. The remedies are cumulative, meaning they do not limit other legal remedies that may already exist.
Impact
The bill would add a new subtitle to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a standalone civil remedy for unsolicited obscene electronic communications. It would expand potential liability for individuals who send obscene images or videos without consent, while expressly exempting internet service providers, mobile data providers, online or mobile application operators acting as conduits, services that transmit audiovisual works, and health care providers sending images for legitimate medical purposes. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, if enacted.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests the measure is framed as a privacy- and harassment-focused response to unwanted explicit electronic communications. The sponsors appear to be seeking a civil enforcement mechanism rather than a criminal penalty, indicating an emphasis on victim remedies and deterrence. No formal committee or floor sentiment is available in the provided materials.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope of what qualifies as “obscene material,” the use of a civil damages remedy for electronic speech, and the size of the statutory and punitive damages available when the material was expressly forbidden. Another likely issue is the balance between protecting recipients from harassment and avoiding overbroad liability for electronic platforms or legitimate communications, which the bill addresses through explicit exemptions. Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the record beyond the bill’s text.