Establish laws related to a digital public square
SB 207 would create a new statutory framework governing what it calls a “digital public square,” defined as an online public platform provided free of charge to some or all users. The bill prohibits a business or entity operating such a platform from limiting or abridging a user’s speech or assembly rights through “digital prohibition,” including banning, deplatforming, shadow banning, algorithmic suppression, monitoring, intimidation, defamation, or throttling, unless the user is violating state or federal law. It also bars censorship of user-created content, including preventing other users from viewing that content, and restricts the use of community standards, contracts, or terms and conditions that would conflict with those protections.
The bill creates a private right of action for users against a platform that violates these restrictions and allows recovery of actual and punitive damages. It also states that offering advertisements does not itself constitute a violation, and it allows a digital public square to be terminated by the business or entity providing it. The bill would be codified into Title 30, chapter 14 of Montana law, making it part of the state’s existing legal framework for business and consumer-related regulation.
In practical terms, SB 207 would significantly limit how online platforms could moderate user speech and content in Montana, especially for free services that qualify as digital public squares. It would expose covered platforms to litigation and damages if they remove users or restrict content in ways the bill prohibits, while preserving an exception for conduct that violates state or federal law. The measure appears aimed at protecting users from platform moderation practices such as deplatforming and shadow banning.
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance, as it “died in process” after a 13-0 committee vote to table it in the Senate Energy, Technology & Federal Relations Committee. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded debate in the provided materials, but the unanimous tabling vote indicates little support for moving the bill forward in its introduced form. The lack of recorded opposition in the vote itself does not necessarily indicate consensus on the policy, only that the committee chose not to proceed.
The main point of contention is the bill’s broad restriction on content moderation and platform governance. Supporters would likely view it as a free-speech and anti-censorship measure, while critics would likely argue it intrudes on private companies’ editorial discretion, conflicts with platform safety and moderation practices, and uses expansive definitions that could sweep in a wide range of online services. The bill’s inclusion of punitive damages and limits on terms of service would likely be especially controversial for digital platforms and legal observers concerned about enforceability and First Amendment implications.
SB 207 would add new restrictions to Montana law governing online platforms classified as digital public squares, effectively regulating moderation practices, user removal, and content visibility on covered services. It would create a statutory cause of action for users, authorize actual and punitive damages, and require that the new provisions be incorporated into Title 30, chapter 14. The bill would directly affect social media companies, online forums, and other free public-facing digital platforms operating in Montana, while preserving an exception for conduct that violates state or federal law.
The bill’s available legislative history suggests limited support for advancement. It was unanimously tabled in the Senate Energy, Technology & Federal Relations Committee by a 13-0 vote and ultimately died in process. With no committee transcript provided, there is no detailed recorded debate, but the procedural outcome indicates the committee did not favor moving the measure forward.
The central controversy is whether the state should prohibit private digital platforms from banning users, censoring content, or using moderation tools such as shadow banning and algorithmic throttling. Supporters would likely frame the bill as protecting free speech and preventing viewpoint discrimination online, while opponents would likely object that it overrides private platform policies, creates broad liability, and may be difficult to apply consistently. The bill’s broad definitions, its restriction on terms and conditions, and its allowance of punitive damages are likely the most contentious features for technology companies, legal stakeholders, and free-speech advocates on both sides.