An Act to Establish Net Neutrality
LD 536, An Act to Establish Net Neutrality, requires internet service providers offering broadband internet access service in Maine to provide “net neutral service” to customers in the state. In practical terms, the bill would prohibit practices such as blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, while using existing Maine statutory definitions for broadband internet access service, internet service provider, net neutral service, paid prioritization, and throttling. It also defines “reasonable network management practice” to allow technically justified network management that is tailored to legitimate network purposes and applied on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The bill further specifies that violations of the new net neutrality requirement are violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, but it bars private lawsuits under the UTPA based solely on a violation of this section. The bill preserves ISP actions related to copyright infringement, unlawful activity, emergency communications, law enforcement, public safety, and national security, and it allows service plans that vary by speed, data limits, income-based eligibility, promotional offers, or legacy pricing so long as they are offered nondiscriminatorily and remain consistent with net neutral service.
This bill would add a new chapter to Title 10 of Maine law and create a state-level net neutrality mandate for broadband providers serving customers in Maine. It would also tie enforcement to the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, expanding the legal consequences of noncompliance while limiting enforcement to public or regulatory action rather than private suits. The measure would affect internet service providers, broadband customers, and state enforcement authorities, while leaving room for certain network management, public safety, and lawful content-related exceptions.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. On June 4, 2025, the House approved the amended report by a vote of 79 to 66, indicating a divided chamber but enough backing to advance the measure. No committee transcript is available here, so the record shows support for consumer-facing net neutrality protections alongside substantial opposition or concern from a significant minority.
The main points of contention are likely the scope of state regulation over broadband providers, the prohibition on paid prioritization and throttling, and the enforcement mechanism through the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Supporters appear to favor consumer protections and an open internet standard, while opponents may be concerned about regulatory burdens, compliance costs, or the state’s role in setting broadband policy. The bill’s exceptions for reasonable network management, emergency and public safety needs, and differentiated service plans suggest an effort to balance those concerns, but the 79-66 vote shows the issue remained politically divisive.