Public Information Act - Frivolous, Vexatious, or Abusive Requests - Remedies
SB 554 amends Maryland’s Public Information Act procedures to give record custodians additional tools to address requests that are found to be frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or made in bad faith. The bill allows a custodian to file a complaint with the State Public Information Act Compliance Board or directly in circuit court alleging that an applicant’s request, or pattern of requests, meets that standard. It also authorizes the Board or court to grant nonmonetary relief, including permitting the custodian to ignore the request, require a less burdensome version of the request, or in some cases decline to respond to future requests from the applicant or someone acting on the applicant’s behalf for a specified period.
The bill also changes the complaint and appeal process. It permits the Compliance Board to dismiss a complaint at the outset if it determines the complaint itself is frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or in bad faith, and allows the complainant to appeal that dismissal. In circuit court, the bill places the burden on the custodian to prove that the request or pattern of requests is frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or in bad faith. It also adjusts venue rules so these complaints and related appeals may be filed in the county where the public record is located or where the applicant resides or has a principal place of business.
The bill’s impact is to modify the enforcement and litigation framework under the Public Information Act, especially for agencies and other custodians that face repeated or burdensome records requests. It adds new statutory authority in General Provisions §§ 4-1A-04, 4-1A-05, 4-1A-10, and 4-362, while preserving the general right of access to public records and the existing appeal structure. The effective date is October 1, 2025.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public debate or roll-call evidence in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and sponsor information, the measure appears to be an Attorney General-request bill aimed at giving custodians a remedy against abusive records-request practices, while still leaving room for judicial or administrative review. The main policy tension inherent in the bill is between protecting agency resources and preventing misuse of the Public Information Act, on one hand, and preserving broad public access and requesters’ rights on the other.
SB 554 amends the Public Information Act in the General Provisions Article by creating and clarifying remedies for custodians facing frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or bad-faith requests. It expands the State Public Information Act Compliance Board’s authority, adds a new basis for custodians to file complaints, authorizes dismissal of abusive complaints, and gives circuit courts similar authority to grant tailored nonmonetary relief. It also revises venue and burden-of-proof rules for these disputes, affecting requesters, custodians, the Compliance Board, and the courts.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no documented recorded sentiment in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the measure appears to have been introduced as a request of the Office of the Attorney General and is framed as a procedural reform to address abusive Public Information Act requests. The overall tone is protective of custodians and administrative efficiency, while still preserving access rights and appeal options.
The central point of contention is likely the balance between open-government access and limits on repetitive or burdensome requests. Supporters would likely emphasize relief for agencies, local governments, and other custodians dealing with request patterns that consume substantial resources, while critics may worry that labeling requests as frivolous, vexatious, abusive, or in bad faith could be used to chill legitimate public records requests or target persistent journalists, advocates, or watchdog groups. The bill’s allowance for orders barring future requests for a period of time is the most restrictive feature and could be the focus of concern.