Relative to adding restitution payment for violations of the confidentiality of the library use records and adding library cards and membership status to the list of confidential matters.
Summary
HB 666 expands New Hampshire’s library-record confidentiality law. It adds library cards and library membership status to the list of protected library records, alongside existing protections for records containing names or other personal identifying information about library users. The bill also clarifies that these records may be disclosed only for proper library operations, by the user’s request or consent, or pursuant to subpoena or court order.
The bill creates a new penalty for unauthorized disclosure of an individual’s library card or membership status. A library, library staff member, or member of the public who discloses that information without a court order or explicit consent would owe the affected individual $500 in restitution and must issue a notarized public apology sent by certified mail. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 666 would amend RSA 201-D:11, the state statute governing confidentiality of library user records, by broadening the definition of confidential library records and adding a specific civil remedy for unauthorized disclosure. It would affect public and other libraries, library employees, and any person who improperly reveals a patron’s library card or membership status. The fiscal note indicates the bill’s overall state fiscal impact is expected to be less than $10,000 in each fiscal year from 2025 through 2028.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill was somewhat divisive but had support overall, with an OTPA vote of 189-172. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure. The close vote margin suggests meaningful concern or disagreement, even though the bill advanced.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the confidentiality expansion and the new enforcement mechanism. Supporters would view the bill as strengthening patron privacy and protecting sensitive information about library use, while opponents may question whether library card or membership status should be treated as confidential in the same way as other records, and whether a mandatory $500 restitution payment plus a notarized public apology is an appropriate penalty. The bill’s application to both library personnel and members of the public may also raise concerns about enforcement and liability.