To amend section 4117.10 and to enact section 4113.25 of the Revised Code to prohibit certain nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements regarding sexual abuse of a child.
HB723 would create a new state law prohibiting certain nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements that would prevent reporting or discussing sexual abuse of a child. The bill defines “sexual abuse of a child” to include specified offenses involving victims under 18, including sexual assault, compelling prostitution, human trafficking, and certain child endangering conduct, regardless of whether an arrest, charge, indictment, or conviction has occurred. Under the bill, any contract or agreement entered into on or after the effective date that blocks a person from notifying law enforcement or regulatory agencies, or that limits disclosure of facts about suspected or actual child sexual abuse, would be void and unenforceable as against public policy.
The bill also amends Ohio’s public-sector labor law, R.C. 4117.10, to make the new prohibition on confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements a term that prevails over conflicting collective bargaining agreements. In practical terms, this means public employers and unions could not use labor contracts to enforce secrecy provisions that interfere with reporting or disclosure of child sexual abuse. The measure would therefore affect private agreements, employment contracts, and public-sector collective bargaining agreements alike, while leaving existing law on other labor topics largely intact.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s introduction appears protective and child-safety oriented, with the stated purpose focused on ensuring that abuse can be reported and discussed without contractual gag provisions. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no further action is shown in the provided materials.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s impact on confidentiality provisions in employment and settlement agreements, especially in contexts where parties may have relied on nondisclosure terms. Supporters would likely view the measure as closing a loophole that can shield abusers and silence victims or witnesses, while critics might raise concerns about contract certainty, privacy, or the scope of disclosures covered. Another possible issue is how broadly the law applies to “suspected” abuse and to disclosures made during investigations, prosecutions, or dispute resolution, though the bill text clearly prioritizes reporting and transparency over secrecy in these cases.
HB723 would add a new section, R.C. 4113.25, to Ohio law and amend R.C. 4117.10 so that anti-gag provisions concerning child sexual abuse override conflicting collective bargaining agreements. It would make any agreement or employment contract clause that restricts reporting to law enforcement or regulatory agencies, or that bars disclosure of facts about child sexual abuse, void and unenforceable as against public policy. The bill would affect employers, employees, public agencies, and any other legal entities entering into such agreements, while also limiting the ability of public-sector labor contracts to preserve confidentiality provisions that conflict with the new statute.
The bill’s framing suggests strong pro-child-protection sentiment, with the policy goal of preventing secrecy agreements from suppressing reports of abuse. No committee testimony or votes are available in the provided record, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder split to summarize. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to be broadly protective and likely to attract support from child advocacy and law enforcement interests.
The likely area of contention is the bill’s restriction on nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, which can be important in employment, settlement, and labor relations contexts. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may argue that the bill could interfere with private contracting, settlement finality, or privacy interests, while supporters would contend that those concerns must yield when child sexual abuse is involved. A second possible point of debate is the breadth of the covered conduct, including suspected abuse and disclosures made in investigations or legal proceedings, though the bill expressly makes those disclosures permissible and prioritizes reporting.