To amend sections 1349.10 and 1349.101 and to enact section 109.1111 of the Revised Code to establish the Innocence Act Enforcement Fund, designate specified provisions of law as the Innocence Act, and clarify the Attorney General's enforcement authority.
HB84 creates a new state fund, the Innocence Act Enforcement Fund, and renames/amends existing Revised Code provisions as the “Innocence Act.” The bill is aimed at online access to material or performances that are obscene or harmful to juveniles. It requires covered organizations to verify that users are at least 18 through “reasonable age verification methods,” to reverify account holders every two years, and to use geolocation tools to detect whether a user is in Ohio and block access until age is verified. It also requires certain privacy and deletion practices for age-verification data, including prompt deletion of identifying information after verification and maintenance of a compliant data privacy policy.
The bill also clarifies and expands the Attorney General’s enforcement authority. The Attorney General may investigate alleged violations, issue subpoenas, seek compliance in court, and bring civil enforcement actions for noncompliance. The bill provides a 45-day cure period for certain first-time violations before enforcement may begin, but allows immediate action for later or uncured violations. Civil penalties may reach up to $100,000 per day of violation, with 75% going to the consumer protection enforcement fund and 25% to the new Innocence Act Enforcement Fund. The bill states that enforcement is exclusive to the Attorney General and creates no private right of action.
HB84 affects Ohio’s consumer protection and obscenity-related statutes by adding detailed compliance obligations for internet-based providers that distribute adult or harmful-to-juveniles content. It excludes several categories of providers from coverage, including news media workers, interactive computer services that are not “organizations,” mobile services, internet providers, cable and satellite services, video service providers, and cloud service providers. The bill also defines key terms such as “organization,” “transactional data,” and “reasonable age verification methods,” and makes the relevant sections severable.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill received unanimous support in a House committee vote and then passed the House overwhelmingly, 95-1. That suggests broad agreement with the bill’s child-protection and enforcement goals, at least in the House.
The main points of contention likely center on privacy, data retention, geolocation monitoring, and the scope of state regulation of online content. The bill requires use of photo ID, transactional data, third-party databases, and geofence-based location checks, while also mandating deletion and security rules for collected data. Those provisions may raise concerns among privacy advocates, technology companies, and civil-liberties critics about surveillance, data handling, and burdens on online publishers and platforms, even though the bill includes exemptions and limits enforcement to the Attorney General.
HB84 would amend Ohio law by creating section 109.1111 and revising sections 1349.10 and 1349.101 of the Revised Code. It establishes a dedicated enforcement fund, imposes age-verification, geolocation, and data-deletion requirements on covered online organizations, and gives the Attorney General exclusive authority to investigate and enforce violations through civil actions and penalties. The bill would also formally designate the amended provisions as the “Innocence Act,” affecting organizations that provide obscene or harmful-to-juveniles content online and the state agencies responsible for enforcement and fund administration.
The available voting record shows very strong support for the bill. It passed a House committee unanimously and then cleared the House by a wide margin, indicating that most lawmakers viewed it as a child-protection and enforcement measure worth advancing. The lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials means there is no transcript-based evidence of organized opposition, but the near-unanimous vote suggests the bill’s overall reception in the House was positive.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s privacy and implementation requirements rather than its general objective. The most notable issues are mandatory age verification using photo identification or transactional data, geofence-based monitoring of users’ locations, and the handling and deletion of sensitive identifying information. Technology and privacy critics could object to the burden on online services and the potential for overcollection of personal data, while supporters are likely to emphasize preventing minors from accessing obscene or harmful material. The bill also narrows enforcement to the Attorney General and excludes a private right of action, which may be intended to limit litigation but could still be debated as to whether it provides sufficient deterrence.