LD 537 creates a new chapter in Maine law prohibiting the “doxing” of a minor and authorizing a civil lawsuit when that conduct occurs. The bill defines doxing of a minor as the intentional, knowing, or reckless disclosure of a minor’s personal identifying information when the discloser consciously disregards a substantial risk that the disclosure will cause stalking, physical harm, property damage, or reasonable fear for safety. It also defines key terms such as “minor,” “close relation,” “disclosure,” and “personal identifying information,” with the latter covering a broad range of data including home contact information, school and employment information, biometric data, government identification numbers, financial information, medical and educational records, and certain photographs or likenesses combined with identifying details.
The bill authorizes a minor to bring a civil action for injunctive relief, actual damages, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. Punitive damages are available if the conduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence to have been committed with malice or motivated by protected characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or health condition. The bill also includes defenses for disclosures made solely to report suspected unlawful conduct to law enforcement, to report unlawful conduct or abuse of authority by public officials, or to engage in constitutionally protected speech, assembly, press, or petition activity on matters of public concern.
In addition to creating the new civil cause of action, the bill amends Maine’s civil rights law to treat a violation of the new doxing prohibition as conduct that may support relief under the existing anti-harassment/civil rights framework. The practical effect is to add a targeted legal remedy for minors whose personal information is disclosed in a way that foreseeably leads to harm, while preserving exceptions for legitimate reporting and protected expression. The bill would therefore expand potential liability for individuals who publish or share minors’ identifying information under the prohibited circumstances.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced on a majority ought-to-pass as amended report and then passed the chamber vote by a narrower margin, suggesting broad concern about protecting minors from online harassment and retaliation, but also some hesitation about the scope of the restriction and its interaction with free-speech rights. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the inclusion of explicit constitutional defenses indicates that speech concerns were likely part of the bill’s design and discussion.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the definition of personal identifying information, the inclusion of photographs and likenesses, and whether the bill could chill lawful reporting or public-interest speech. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect minors from stalking, threats, and real-world harm caused by online exposure, while critics may worry about overbreadth, proof standards, and the potential for civil liability to reach controversial but lawful speech. The bill’s carveouts for law enforcement reporting and protected constitutional activity appear intended to address those concerns.
The bill adds a new chapter to Title 14 establishing a civil prohibition on doxing of minors and creates a private right of action for affected minors. It also amends Title 5’s civil rights-related provisions to include violations of the new doxing chapter among conduct that can trigger relief under existing law. The measure expands potential civil liability, authorizes damages and injunctive relief, and creates statutory defenses to preserve lawful reporting and constitutionally protected speech.
The voting record suggests the bill had meaningful support, with majority approval on the amended report and final passage by a narrower margin. That pattern indicates a generally favorable view of the bill’s goal of protecting minors from harmful disclosure of personal information, while also reflecting some reservations about how broadly the new prohibition reaches and how it may affect speech and reporting. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments, but the statutory exceptions suggest lawmakers were attentive to First Amendment concerns.
The likely areas of disagreement are the scope of the definition of “personal identifying information,” especially the inclusion of photographs, likenesses, school and employment information, and other data that may be publicly available in some contexts, and whether the bill could be used to deter lawful journalism, advocacy, or online commentary. Another point of tension is the balance between protecting minors from stalking, threats, and harassment and preserving constitutional rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition. Supporters are likely focused on child safety and privacy, while opponents or skeptics are likely concerned about overbreadth, chilling effects, and the civil-liability standard.