Montana House Bill HB408

Montana 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/27/25
• Refer: 3/1/25
• Failed: 5/22/25

Caption

Revise laws to protect children from obscene content through electronic devices

Summary

HB408 would require smartphones and tablets activated in Montana on or after January 1, 2026, to include a content filter designed to block access to obscene content. During device setup, users would be asked to provide their age, and the filter would automatically turn on for minors. The bill also requires the device to allow password protection for the filter, notify users when content is blocked, and permit adults with the password to deactivate and reactivate the filter. The bill creates liability for manufacturers if a qualifying device is activated in Montana without the required filter and a minor later accesses obscene content, although manufacturers can avoid liability if they made a good-faith effort to provide the required automatic filter. It also creates liability for a person who intentionally disables the filter on a minor’s device and the minor then accesses obscene content, while exempting parents and legal guardians. The attorney general could seek injunctions, civil penalties, fees, and possible business-license revocation for repeated violations, and parents or guardians could also sue manufacturers or other persons for damages and other relief.

Impact

HB408 would amend and add provisions to Montana law governing obscenity and civil liability by effectively imposing a device-level filtering requirement on certain smartphones and tablets sold for activation in the state. It would create new statutory duties for manufacturers, new enforcement authority for the attorney general, and new private causes of action for parents or guardians. The bill would apply only to devices activated in Montana on or after the effective date and would not apply to devices manufactured before that date or create claims against retailers.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had strong support in the House, passing committee and floor votes by comfortable margins, but it encountered significant resistance in the Senate, where a motion to table failed and later attempts to advance the bill were unsuccessful. The final Senate action left the bill indefinitely postponed, and the bill died in process. Overall, the voting history suggests broad initial support for the goal of protecting minors, paired with enough concern in the Senate to stop final enactment.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s feasibility, scope, and liability structure. Supporters appear to have favored the child-protection rationale and the automatic filtering requirement, while opponents likely questioned whether manufacturers should be held civilly liable for content access on consumer devices, whether age verification and filtering could be reliably implemented, and whether the bill could burden device makers and users. The bill also drew a line between third parties and parents or guardians, exempting the latter from liability, which may have been important to supporters but could have been part of broader debate over who should bear responsibility for disabling filters.