Civil Actions - Failure to Restrict Distribution of Sexual Material Harmful to Minors
HB 908 creates a new civil cause of action aimed at commercial entities that distribute “sexual material harmful to minors” on the internet without using specified age-verification methods. The bill defines covered terms such as commercial entity, digital identification, transactional data, and reasonable age verification methods, and it limits the law’s reach by excluding internet service providers, search engines, cloud providers, and bona fide news or public-interest content. A covered website would be required to verify that a user is at least 18 before allowing access to qualifying material.
The bill also bars the commercial entity or any third party performing age verification from retaining identifying information about users after access is granted or denied. If a violation occurs, a parent or legal guardian may sue on behalf of a minor who accessed the material, and any person may sue over unlawful retention of identifying information. Prevailing plaintiffs may recover damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief the court deems appropriate. The act would take effect October 1, 2026.
HB 908 would add a new subtitle to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article creating civil liability for certain online distributors of sexual material harmful to minors. It would require affected websites to implement age-verification systems using government-issued ID, commercially reasonable transactional-data methods, or digital identification, while also imposing privacy limits on the retention of identifying information collected during verification. The bill would not apply to internet infrastructure providers or news-gathering organizations, and it would create a private right of action for parents, guardians, and individuals seeking damages and other remedies.
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced but not advanced, as it was later withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. No committee transcript or recorded votes are available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broad support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a policy focus on protecting minors online and limiting data retention, but the lack of legislative action indicates the measure did not move forward in this session.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between protecting minors from harmful sexual content and preserving privacy, free expression, and operational burdens on online platforms. Supporters would likely emphasize age verification and parental protection, while critics may object to the scope of the definition of covered content, the feasibility and accuracy of age-verification systems, and the privacy risks associated with collecting identity or transactional data. Exemptions for news organizations and internet infrastructure providers suggest an effort to narrow the bill’s reach, but those carveouts may also reflect concerns about overbreadth and unintended effects on lawful content and intermediaries.