Civil Actions - Distribution of Obscene Material to Minors
HB 693 creates a new civil liability framework for commercial entities that distribute obscene material to minors over the internet from websites containing a substantial portion of obscene content. The bill requires such entities to use reasonable age-verification methods to confirm that users are at least 18 years old before granting access to the material. It also bars the entity or any third-party age-verification provider from retaining identifying information about a user after access is granted or denied.
The bill defines key terms such as “commercial entity,” “distribute,” “obscene,” “reasonable age verification methods,” “substantial portion,” and “transactional data.” It exempts internet service providers, search engines, cloud service providers, and news-gathering organizations from liability when they are not responsible for creating or communicating the obscene material, and it excludes bona fide news or public-interest content from coverage. A person harmed by a violation may sue for damages caused by a minor’s access to obscene material or by improper retention of identifying information, and a prevailing plaintiff may recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
HB 693 would add new sections to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a private right of action against certain online commercial entities that fail to verify age before distributing obscene material to minors. It would also impose data-retention limits on age-verification vendors and entities, affecting how websites collect, use, and store identifying information during age checks. The bill would not apply to internet infrastructure providers or bona fide news/public-interest content, and it would take effect October 1, 2026.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, with a hearing scheduled, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill’s sponsor list and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and online-content regulation bill, with an emphasis on restricting minors’ access to obscene material and limiting privacy risks from age verification. Because no discussion or vote history is included, there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials beyond the bill’s formal introduction.
The main points of contention likely center on balancing child protection, free speech, privacy, and the burden on online businesses. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing minors from accessing obscene material and requiring age checks, while critics may focus on the breadth of the “substantial portion” standard, the scope of what counts as obscene content, and the privacy implications of age-verification systems. Exemptions for news organizations and service providers suggest the bill anticipates concerns about press freedom and intermediary liability, but those carveouts may still be debated.