[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6622656,"mediaKeyId","2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230","parentId",2783677,"title","Senate sponsors push broader state limits on federal access to Maryland data","audioSeconds",516,"startMs",7106000,"endMs",7622000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230&start=7106&end=7622","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230/thumbnail_7106000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622656/Maryland/Senate-sponsors-push-broader-state-limits-on-federal-access-to-Maryland-data","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622656-63e9aca5e7d60bd8ae1cf69b89dd2ed0/orig.mp4?Expires=1776227204&Signature=af70qThRnJk0exsp7jCBURBzfUTl0iA1hOyAcHHTFDurn7yCZ5ZMg-7yNfVakHED9EcbXrgGOpFUKtyUL-gM9ElTh9AMESKLoKpRwEMpIVzwRsGRa0hi8rfeO60W~UH-iQgS9eJ-klPF60H~MpjRk8839znpx4o6efQfdPvD5MrEypvqVyOHsgcw1vYkS8v6GOl1Gg45FOJo28BO7tQrfg4m65RPYiEccMwoRcUHu89hE99eEHaTtfcoAemYm0I-U-S0PEp5vPzWt9k53XAXdKICivIzayhRCZTfJpTUQsOo7yBGcLH4DmTypcit1~c~Jk8QsaiTGQiIqz92pVZ55A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judiciary","date","2025-03-26T22:53:37.537Z","article","Senator Clarence Lam and other sponsors presented the Maryland Data Privacy Act (Senate Bill 977), a push to extend and broaden existing state limits on federal and third-party access to sensitive state-held data.

What the bill would do

Senator Lam described the bill as an extension of the 2021 Driver Privacy Act: it would require state or federal judicial warrants for federal agents to access certain Maryland state databases (including driver\u0000license and law-enforcement data), expand reporting obligations to the Attorney General and General Assembly when requests occur, and add limits and reporting requirements on data brokers that repackage public records and other information.

Why sponsors framed it as necessary

Sponsors and committee supporters said the bill is intended to protect Marylanders\u0000personal information from warrantless or administratively authorized federal searches, and to make access transparent. Senator Lam raised national concerns about more aggressive federal enforcement and described the bill as a way for Maryland to assert control over how its data is used.

Questions and constitutional concerns

Committee members and staff raised several implementation and constitutional questions. A Judiciary staff memo cited possible First Amendment concerns about content-based restrictions on \"personal information\" and flagged the risk the Attorney General\u0000s office had identified. Committee members asked how the bill would affect standard public tools (for example, accessible voter files and judicial case search) and university obligations (for example, I-9 or visa-related reporting for sponsored students).

Senator Lam responded that the bill seeks to protect state-held data and that he is open to drafting clarifications. He said the bill as amended removes some items and inserts a new data-broker prohibition drafted by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. He also said the bill would not stop routine statutory disclosures required of entities such as universities but that he was open to tailored carve-outs.

Next steps

Committee staff asked the sponsor to consult with the Attorney General\u0000s Office and affected agencies to address constitutional concerns that were raised in an AG letter and to resolve questions about how the bill would interact with established public search tools and statutory reporting duties. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 3/26/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Senator Clarence Lam and other sponsors presented the Maryland Data Privacy Act (Senate Bill 977), a push to extend and broaden existing state limits on federal and third-party access to sensitive state-held data.","taxTitle","Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15063,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622664,"Delegate Wilson seeks liability cap, mandatory dispute process in Child Victims Act amendments",6383,227000,6610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230&start=227&end=6610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230/thumbnail_227000.jpg","/articles/6622664/Maryland/Delegate-Wilson-seeks-liability-cap-mandatory-dispute-process-in-Child-Victims-Act-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622664-005c3ac0f43dee38598236c55fc7e40b/orig.mp4?Expires=1776227204&Signature=UvPSaQHewll1kpstdesUVruo8swUW6X4Mbi-yewIEWy59-GeCgiJ9V~VX1rKZ~b18niwE-eb2gFZ8a0p29xV2c6sRBaqzkkbCqwbiHCJ1u-B4mAi8anpzsWL06OgIBaAcup3~7Ff0qlJda~Bj57pO48dfKQS91ovksns1llCfyGce9501Oq-JyjwC0uY7eJWs2JDOH98lmFzALDLEzTInlo8~YHKi6A1yeNTM9b692ePEZgORzqaE5NIKIlL1bntHBGIWx1kGS5l0~RNMxCAaF1ffrgFjYyEOjcKfvrPpZIHZ0ZlBxQxJFQGSsqhisBUWWrEa~i60V6X11eB2bbG5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An Annapolis hearing on March 26 drew standing-room testimony and sharply divided witnesses over House Bill 13-78, a proposal from Delegate Wilson that would alter how Maryland compensates survivors under the 2023 Child Victims Act (CVA).

Delegate Wilson, sponsor of the measure, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill is meant to address what he described as an unexpectedly large number of claims and an associated fiscal threat to the state. He said the amended bill keeps an $890,000 cap \"per claimant\" for suits filed on or before Sept. 30, 2025, but would lower recoveries for actions filed after Oct. 1, 2025, to the damages levels available under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The revision also would create a mandated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process for new claims and require public reporting of settlement payments while allowing victims to redact their names.

\"This is not about the money,\" Delegate Wilson said in his testimony, describing the measure as an effort to preserve the state's fiscal ability to pay services while still providing survivors with an avenue to be heard. He added that reporting requirements are a first step toward understanding the fiscal scope and implementing any future minimum staffing or payout standards.

Why it matters

The change would alter remedies created by the 2023 Child Victims Act, a statute many witnesses described as a hard-won expansion of access to civil court for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiffs' attorneys and survivors\u0000advocates warned that the proposed amendments would sharply cut recoveries for people who do not file claims before the Sept. 30 cutoff and could be subject to constitutional challenge because the CVA created vested rights when it became law.

What supporters told the committee

Supporters of the bill, including Delegate Wilson and several lawmakers who spoke in favor, said the legislature must balance survivor compensation with the state\u0000budget and the ongoing need to fund public services. Wilson told the committee the bill attempts to preserve access while creating a transparent, accountable ADR process and a public record of payments so payouts are not hidden in confidential settlements.

Several witnesses representing survivor organizations said they accept the need to consider fiscal consequences but pressed for safeguards in any ADR model. Lisa Jordan, an attorney with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, urged the committee to specify which state entity would administer the ADR program and to ensure survivors could choose a jury trial instead of a purely administrative process.

What opponents told the committee

Opponents included plaintiffs\u0000attorneys and survivors who testified that the amendments would effectively take away rights granted under the CVA. Multiple attorneys argued the changes raise serious constitutional issues. Patrick Thronson of the Maryland Association for Justice and other lawyers pointed to Maryland precedent and constitutional protections that, they said, prevent the Legislature from abolishing vested rights conferred by statute.

\"The day the governor signed the CVA, rights were conferred on anyone who had ever been abused prior to that day,\" attorney Corey Stern said. He and several other lawyers warned that forcing claimants into an ADR program or reducing damages after the CVA's enactment could be litigated as an unlawful impairment of vested property rights.

Survivors who testified described long-term harms and asked the panel to preserve access to full civil discovery and jury trials. Several attorneys and victims\u0000advocates said ADR without robust discovery or the option to go to court would deprive claimants of the tools they need to prove cases that often require reconstructing decades-old events.

Numbers and process questions

Speakers discussed differing counts of pending claims. Delegate Wilson said there were approximately 4,500 claims filed with another 1,500 waiting; several plaintiffs' lawyers disputed the larger figures in public reporting and said, based on filings, the number of cases in court was substantially lower. (Witnesses furnished different counts during the hearing.)

Committee members and witnesses also pressed for clarity on multiple procedural points: whether the ADR process would be binding, what discovery would be available in ADR, how attorneys\u0000fees would be governed, whether the ADR body would be established by executive branch rule or by legislation, and whether there would be timelines for ADR decisions so claimants could avoid further delay.

Statements from advocates and attorneys at the hearing reflected those uncertainties. Ellen Flynn, an attorney representing survivors, said limiting discovery and excluding jury trial access would \"hamper [survivors'] abilities to prove their claims.\" Several defense and plaintiffs' counsel advised the committee to pursue a funded, studied approach rather than last-minute statutory changes.

What the bill would do (as described at the hearing)

- Preserve an $890,000 damages cap for claimants who had filed by Sept. 30, 2025.
- Limit damages for claims filed on or after Oct. 1, 2025, to the Maryland Tort Claims Act cap (witnesses described a lower cap roughly in the $400,000 range); the bill text and Administrator guidance would be the ultimate source for the exact figure.
- Require claimants to go through an ADR process; the sponsor characterized the ADR as nonbinding on its face but said reporting and public disclosure of payments would be required.
- Require public reporting of amounts paid per claimant while allowing victims to redact their names if they wish.

What the committee asked for

Lawmakers pressed the sponsor and panels for more specifics on how ADR would be structured and whether limiting remedies prospectively (for abuse that occurs after Oct. 1) rather than by filing date might address legal concerns. Several members suggested a working group or summer study to produce a workable ADR model and estimates of fiscal exposure before altering statutory rights.

Context and next steps

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Multiple witnesses asked for further drafting and a clear administrative plan for whatever ADR mechanism the legislature might approve. Plaintiffs' attorneys urged lawmakers to avoid retroactive reductions in remedies and to preserve jury access and full discovery; the sponsor asked the committee to consider the amended bill as a compromise to protect both survivors and the state's fiscal capacity.

Ending

The hearing made clear lawmakers remain deeply divided about how to reconcile the CVA's expansion of access to justice with fiscal and constitutional limits. Committee members asked for additional detail on ADR design, timelines and statutory drafting before moving the bill forward.

","An Annapolis hearing on March 26 drew standing-room testimony and sharply divided witnesses over House Bill 13-78, a proposal from Delegate Wilson that would alter how Maryland compensates survivors under the 2023 Child Victims Act (CVA).",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622649,"Sponsor calls for parity in penalties for hit-and-run on waterways",134,6856000,6990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230&start=6856&end=6990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230/thumbnail_6856000.jpg","/articles/6622649/Maryland/Sponsor-calls-for-parity-in-penalties-for-hit-and-run-on-waterways","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622649-8b7d128c7ca6394fa225c42c7d802922/orig.mp4?Expires=1776227204&Signature=LiMRMXNr~Qw2UulEixzjPDv2V2-3NTfHPWk-b9HnbL3kS6pSPsGkKl3W6PoVOLYR6GoZ2PTkE2WPLzsxD11QK8H9~msjVp5pMOhuZ14-Yxt9Sdsmw6nd8GzDNgtWUYgymrnC6ZflAsI1UlMu~Iu8G6XNe0PL62XoMZtfGPOIKN4huVMhcZ1t5e2uWASYhDlhZkARqMf0KfDmAyFo5pqGqbC4CQjIBTZmllZ35yo6ewseQ3~Wyg99f76D1F-t5iqfMmsWEM8bZ4kikb35puSiqXbi6nsno0qNimP804xsRKC8D-dj-Y8jSeVoxkQhjzDipI2ryNX22eILiIPHHobGkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Simon Aray presented Senate Bill 123 (cross-file of House Bill 676) on March 26, asking the Judiciary Committee to make hit-and-run on Maryland waterways subject to the same penalties that apply on land.

Sponsor description and motivation

Senator Aray said the legislation responds to a constituent case in which a fatal boating collision was followed by the other vessel leaving the scene and receiving a relatively small citation. The bill would expand the statutory crime to make it applicable \"whether an individual is on land or sea,\" and increase penalties where a person leaves the scene of a boating accident that results in serious bodily injury or death.

Questions from the committee

Members asked whether maritime law differs from land-based criminal statutes and whether differing governing authorities (federal maritime law versus state criminal law) would pose conflicts. The sponsor argued that some crimes are location-neutral and that leaving the scene of a crash that causes serious injury or death should be treated the same on water or land.

Next steps

The sponsor asked the committee to advance the bill and said he is open to committee amendments. No formal vote was recorded at the hearing.

","Senate Bill 123, presented as a cross-file of House Bill 676, would align penalties for hit-and-run incidents on Maryland waterways with land-based crimes. Sponsor said the case of a constituent whose spouse died in a boating hit-and-run illustrated the disparity; committee members asked about maritime legal differences and enforcement.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622659,"Committee hears bill to criminalize nonconsensual AI-generated explicit images and add civil remedies",1388,4931000,6319000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230&start=4931&end=6319","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2783677-5cd4c9bb73d29f782968dced35cd7230/thumbnail_4931000.jpg","/articles/6622659/Maryland/Committee-hears-bill-to-criminalize-nonconsensual-AI-generated-explicit-images-and-add-civil-remedies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622659-4f221399d8f301bdba0200d7b9d44553/orig.mp4?Expires=1776227204&Signature=iyt~wcTLXqxQhFfcxVzmCj4-Z80H5v9OmgP1MGiNQZeiZGPrAbyxdKdtgVOTaxJg5hgQLcSpspBYf86yGHV4N5MQYFnjCvU1bbo~8InMAEgPOqpga4AV22uQLtXLn6LfuWtQYcCHVvFyzxvx1V7oIGmHiGiMqiM9CAs0eNV2ZI6kaQ3M4wuaEaL0KW9Ym6PjGbXlKbP6WwwixAsExE5q0lhFxs-uVZTp5q2Y81mc0r1wGpsdKsVM3iXu81dpvDITCZx-9-YOH2qXed23-LeufCZcHLUOmJae48PvN9KN5AqT4ocIB3iSQksMmXHZKPW3rPqoZzj5BBm9IBLPjpI~hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a March 26 House Judiciary Committee hearing supporters urged passage of Senate Bill 360, which would criminalize distribution of sexually explicit visual representations of an identifiable person created or altered without consent and create a private civil remedy for victims.

Sponsor testimony and advocacy groups

Senator Hester framed the bill as a response to growing use of websites and apps that produce explicit \"deepfake\" images. The bill would amend Maryland\u0000criminal and civil law to make it a misdemeanor to distribute such material when the distributor intends to harass or harm the depicted person; it also permits injured parties to seek injunctive relief and damages.

Advocates including the Women\u0000s Law Center and the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault supported the measure and recommended a technical change to the bill\u0000language so prosecutors could charge a single offense whether the image was an actual photograph or computer-generated. Lisa Jordan of MCASA suggested a unified definition of \"visual representation\" so enforcement and charging would not hinge on how an image was produced.

Public defender concerns

Jeremy Zacker of the Office of the Public Defender testified in opposition. He told the committee the bill's definition of \"computer generated\" might be overly broad and vague because many ordinary photo edits or digital manipulations could arguably fall within the definition. He warned that a vague criminal definition could create due-process problems and urged caution before adding a new criminal offense.

Prosecution and proof questions

Committee members and witnesses discussed evidentiary and charging challenges: how a prosecutor would prove an image is computer-generated, what standard an \"ordinary person\" would use to deem a depiction \"indistinguishable\" from a real person, and whether civil remedies might be a more appropriate first step. Supporters noted other states have adopted similar measures and argued that criminal and civil tools are both needed to deter misuse and provide victims a path for relief.

Next steps

Witnesses asked the committee to adopt a streamlined definition that covers imagery produced by any means but leaves courts and prosecutors with clear guidance. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

","Senate Bill 360 would expand Maryland\u0000law to cover computer-generated explicit imagery that depicts an identifiable person without consent. Supporters said the measure closes a prosecution gap; the public defender warned the language could be vague and risk due-process problems.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate sponsors push broader state limits on federal access to Maryland data

Delegate Wilson seeks liability cap, mandatory dispute process in Child Victims Act amendments

Sponsor calls for parity in penalties for hit-and-run on waterways

Committee hears bill to criminalize nonconsensual AI-generated explicit images and add civil remedies