HB 924, the Safe Kids Act, creates a new civil cause of action in Maryland for unlawful child exploitation material and expands criminal law definitions and penalties related to child pornography. The bill adds a new subtitle to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article allowing a parent or legal guardian of a minor depicted in or exposed to unlawful child exploitation material to sue an online platform that knowingly and intentionally issues, sells, distributes, transfers, disseminates, creates, or develops such material. Available remedies include nominal and actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, and the Attorney General is also authorized to seek injunctive or other equitable relief.
The bill also amends the Criminal Law Article to define “computer-generated image” to include images created using artificial intelligence software and to treat such AI-generated images as potentially indistinguishable from an actual minor for purposes of child pornography offenses. It changes the age reference in the child pornography statute from “under the age of 16 years” to “minor,” broadening the protected class, while keeping existing prohibitions on possession and viewing of qualifying sexual images. The bill preserves existing defenses and clarifies that remedies under the new civil subtitle are cumulative and do not depend on a criminal conviction.
In terms of state law impact, HB 924 would significantly expand Maryland’s legal tools against online child sexual exploitation by creating platform liability in civil court and by expressly reaching AI-generated and computer-generated depictions. It also limits the subtitle’s application for entities such as internet service providers, search engines, and cloud service providers when they are only transmitting, routing, storing, or providing connections and are not responsible for creating or developing the unlawful material. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship and framing is strongly protective and enforcement-oriented, with the measure presented as a child-safety and anti-exploitation bill. No committee transcript or vote data is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate formal support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to respond to concerns about online distribution of exploitative material and the use of artificial intelligence to generate abusive images.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of liability for online platforms and the breadth of the new civil remedy. Potential concerns include whether the bill could expose digital services to litigation over user-generated content, how “knowingly and intentionally” would be interpreted, and whether the AI-related definitions are sufficiently precise. The bill attempts to address some of those issues by excluding certain intermediaries that are only passively transmitting or storing content, but the new joint-and-several liability, punitive damages, and attorney’s fee provisions suggest a strong enforcement approach that could draw scrutiny from technology and platform stakeholders.
HB 924 would add a new civil enforcement scheme to Maryland law for unlawful child exploitation material and amend existing child pornography statutes to expressly include AI-generated computer images and to broaden the protected age reference from a child under 16 to a minor. It would create potential civil liability for online platforms, authorize Attorney General enforcement, and preserve criminal penalties under the Criminal Law Article while expanding the reach of those offenses to modern digital and AI-generated depictions.
The bill is framed as a child-protection and anti-exploitation measure, suggesting generally favorable sentiment among its sponsors and likely supporters. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal opposition or support in the available history. The text indicates a strong enforcement posture aimed at online platforms and AI-generated abuse imagery.
Likely points of contention include the bill’s expansion of liability for online platforms, the availability of punitive damages and attorney’s fees in private suits, and the inclusion of AI-generated images within child pornography definitions. Technology companies, internet service providers, search engines, and cloud providers may be concerned about litigation exposure, while child-safety advocates would likely support the broader remedies and enforcement tools. The bill partially narrows its reach by excluding passive intermediaries that do not create or develop the unlawful material.