An Act to create 20.455 (2) (gq), 100.77 and 814.75 (28) of the statutes; Relating to: warning labels for explicit content, creating an explicit content label warning surcharge, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
SB938 would create a new Wisconsin statute requiring distributors of “explicit content” to place prominent warning labels on that material. The bill defines explicit content as adult-oriented visual, written, or auditory material that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value and depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way. It applies to both print publications and digital platforms, and it prescribes detailed formatting rules for the warning, including specific placement, font size, contrast, timing, and screen coverage for online content. For digital content, distributors would also have to include the metadata tag “WisconsinExplicitContentWarning.”
The bill also establishes an enforcement structure centered on the Department of Justice. DOJ would investigate alleged violations, issue pre-enforcement notice, and could seek injunctive relief or forfeitures. Initial violations could be penalized up to $2,500 per violation, with a reduced penalty if the distributor cures the violation within 14 days of notice; repeat violations would carry higher forfeitures. In addition, courts would impose a 50 percent surcharge on forfeitures, and those surcharge revenues would be appropriated to DOJ for enforcement. The bill also creates a private notice-and-suit process allowing individuals or organizations to notify distributors and DOJ of alleged violations and, if DOJ does not act within 60 days and the violation remains uncured, to sue for damages or injunctive relief and recover costs and attorney fees.
In terms of state law impact, SB938 would add new statutory duties for publishers, sellers, and online platforms that distribute adult content, while also creating a new enforcement account and surcharge mechanism in the state finance code. It would expand DOJ’s role in policing content-labeling compliance and create a new private enforcement pathway that could expose distributors to both government and citizen-initiated litigation. The bill would affect adult-content businesses, print publishers, websites, apps, and other commercial services that host or sell material meeting the bill’s definition.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears limited but negative in outcome: there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Because no discussion excerpts are available, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate bipartisan support or opposition, but the final status indicates the proposal did not advance.
The main points of contention likely center on free-speech and First Amendment concerns, the breadth and subjectivity of the definition of explicit content, and the practical burden on publishers and digital platforms to implement highly specific warning-label requirements and metadata tagging. The private notice-and-suit provision may also be controversial because it allows individuals and organizations to trigger enforcement and potentially recover attorney fees, increasing litigation risk for distributors.
SB938 would create new Wisconsin statutory requirements in ch. 100 for warning labels on explicit content, add a new surcharge and appropriation mechanism in ch. 20 and ch. 814, and authorize DOJ and private parties to enforce compliance. It would impose compliance obligations on distributors of adult-oriented print and digital content, with civil forfeitures, injunctive relief, and fee-shifting remedies for violations.
No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented debate to characterize. The bill’s final status—failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1—indicates it did not advance, suggesting the proposal lacked sufficient support or was otherwise not enacted.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill’s warning-label mandate would burden protected speech, whether the definition of “explicit content” is too broad or vague, and whether the required label size and screen-coverage rules are workable for publishers and online platforms. The private enforcement mechanism, which allows individuals and organizations to initiate actions and recover attorney fees if DOJ does not act, is also likely to be controversial because it could increase litigation and compliance costs for distributors.