[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6061744,"mediaKeyId","3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682","parentId",3281092,"title","Committee reopens debate on bill restricting sale of precise geolocation data; sponsor seeks amendment","audioSeconds",1123,"startMs",3602000,"endMs",4725000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682&start=3602&end=4725","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682/thumbnail_3602000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6061744/Oregon/Committee-reopens-debate-on-bill-restricting-sale-of-precise-geolocation-data-sponsor-seeks-amendment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061744-7fba9a61358ad22395da6f18c7e31331/orig.mp4?Expires=1773682002&Signature=V9BzOZltWyg0pOQjB1BUthNhW~W5TsDkMRQaydKk7N3y6gzZugN2FpqvVQpc33hyNbsqYaGWFRASn4znM-fyjG93k1o2Yhw1xj57TFLi-jvFVXosS86UHtaH616fSEzaqWIiCbUsE~GDiHT2Sswm-WG9N2G6xEaGBo5a0ouLoJB0rgzE4xyTIxarWuwFcTGofbkvEy4YTGRzqeTdidGmAMs9ZP8Nx1p-VshH-lNAHStMDkDky7rF3-ZSXQX5h9h-4ih3D2D35yOwZX4Mxc46uGAAaQM9bznMnE8hlnpO32lEN29PMQIG8vvkSEEJSaJ4ylZhdrIjD6rmb1stayIEJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-05-12T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Judiciary took extended testimony and debate May 12 on House Bill 2008A, a bill that would restrict controllers covered by the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act from processing personal data for targeted advertising or selling precise geolocation data when the controller knows or willfully disregards that the consumer is under 16, and would bar sale of precise geolocation data (defined in the bill to a radius of approximately 1,750 feet) more broadly.

Tisha (committee staff) outlined the measure and its floor support; discussion then focused on the practical effects of banning the sale of precise geolocation data rather than collection or non‑sale transfers. The bill passed a motion to move to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation, but the committee later agreed by unanimous consent to reopen the vote after sponsors and industry requested an A4 amendment. The committee voted to rescind and reconsider the prior floor motion and then carried the bill over to a subsequent meeting when the A4 paperwork was not available.

Willie Choetzen, introduced as a chief sponsor during the hearing, told senators the restriction “does not ban the collection of precise geolocation data.” He said the bill also does not bar transfers of data where no exchange of value occurs and does not prohibit sale of non‑precise geolocation information. The sponsor and staff said privacy groups and several tech stakeholders participated in negotiations; they cited similar or related proposals in other states, including Maryland and California.

Several senators raised implementation concerns. Senator McLean asked whether common apps (for example, navigation apps or location‑based advertising tied to nearby businesses) would stop functioning; the sponsor said he was not aware of any app that would be unable to operate but acknowledged differences in business models. Senator Thatcher asked whether the bill would impede emergency alerts or fraud prevention; staff and sponsor said fraud exceptions in the OCPA and the nature of cell‑tower‑based emergency alerts meant those functions would not be affected.

After discussion the committee approved a series of voice and roll calls to reconsider its vote; staff later notified members that the A4 paperwork would be filed and the bill was carried over to the committee’s next meeting so the amendment can be considered with full documentation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Judiciary 05/12/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Members questioned which apps and business models the restriction would affect; sponsors said the bill bans sale of precise geolocation data (within 1,750 feet) but does not bar collection or internal transfers and exempts fraud investigations and non‑sale transfers.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17923,"location","Oregon","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},6061749,"Senate Judiciary hears civil remedy for 'cyber‑flashing' that excludes criminal penalties",1399,2100000,3499000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682&start=2100&end=3499","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682/thumbnail_2100000.jpg","/articles/6061749/Oregon/Senate-Judiciary-hears-civil-remedy-for-cyberflashing-that-excludes-criminal-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061749-3d77e411b47b6fa863a313f8ab8a48ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1773682002&Signature=OcnYhqkoprG700LeC0p3QYk-fKwiD2-7hJlohHbqrFIqwIcDzHsAke2zDbUfiXOHEbQ8YyFkk00YBFe-3NE6O4N8e0JXL5PuvBQmMyNk40rfoLGY674p~DeRLNZpNBlJEEcK0v3F3DOC6gD7DzJI261iD1AWKEAzXO4~dzT0D8al3uknJs95OKSOMVAT1x9JHa62MpdQLUfnKStV5FEhVxrRyrVUMhMUXH7FCE3kKjoKIRYjl3m~r1u6G5dRAu4A3IlRMhw3eBIiNhWVEEpoC3c0jKg53JUi3Ic6lkIhkfjDLx-XMIfou9V20~yn22yar~MRs552fBVXUaT-NJ8OAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on May 12 held a public hearing on House Bill 3766A, a bipartisan measure that would create a civil cause of action for adults who transmit an intimate image of another person without consent and with intent to harass, degrade or humiliate the recipient.

Representative Farrah Chaychee, the bill’s House sponsor on the record, said the measure is modeled on laws in Texas, Virginia and California and is intended to provide a civil remedy — not a criminal penalty — for the practice commonly called “cyber‑flashing.” “This bill creates a legal mechanism to pursue civil action ... colloquially referred to as cyber flashing,” she told the committee.

Under the bill as described, plaintiffs could recover the greater of $500 or their actual economic and non‑economic damages up to $10,000; actions are barred against third‑party internet providers and against medical providers transmitting images for legitimate medical purposes. The amendment discussed narrowed defendants to adults who were 18 or older when they sent the image.

Witnesses described the scope and harms. Daniel Mulkey, chief of staff to Representative Hartman, recounted receiving an unsolicited image via AirDrop on a flight and called the practice “invasive” and “unwanted.” Rebecca Gladstone of the League of Women Voters said the law is intended to protect privacy and noted the bill is designed so many cases can be handled in small claims court. Nikki Terziev of the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence urged the committee to pass the bill, calling cyber‑flashing retraumatizing for survivors.

Committee members asked technical questions about remedies and court venues. Senator Broadman asked whether plaintiffs could still pursue other civil claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress; staff said the bill contains no exclusive‑remedy clause that would prevent bringing additional claims. Members also discussed AirDrop settings and options for consumers to reduce exposure; witnesses and senators noted device settings (for example, accepting AirDrop only from contacts) can limit unsolicited transfers.

The hearing record included multiple survivor‑service and civil‑society proponents and no criminal‑law proponents. Testimony referenced national surveys showing high rates of unsolicited explicit images, particularly among younger women. The committee closed the public hearing; members did not vote in the hearing and the bill continues through the committee process.","Sponsors described HB 3766A as a civil‑only route for victims to seek damages for unsolicited intimate images; witnesses described AirDrop incidents and urged a small‑claims pathway limited to adults and capped damages.",{"_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},6061754,"Committee hears bill to lengthen wait to clear protection-order violations from 1 year to 5",1721,436000,2157000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682&start=436&end=2157","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281092-d009692c77b3936f0830020ee8a37682/thumbnail_436000.jpg","/articles/6061754/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-to-lengthen-wait-to-clear-protection-order-violations-from-1-year-to-5","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061754-5128413ca4dd5b9974e979f2b27f52c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773682002&Signature=iRuCxEPAAMeHTSsZkIcz90gqJRafytRtjtFcH~I24ScZr3f5N5ZSnPuGJtgKTaFOCV-umj~tWoO6m36dnSpRSWivjbUE8Pakh4MD9AvhdFXSrbH4BSrEhefrzdkjSouOu5zcxjHeU53NnG7jhPHwkv-bZ-IsfhwxOX7VvfDWkf-pDbWrPJOZf-tjLnN80qNNgkmYQop-HtJyaImV4UBsPCKPDMJyehOqFJ6UW9sHOZB55gGacdNhBlgT-vwXrMj4D4n4sbDor5dQZHDwwW9NRbEnWqcNuRG~IQSNjlCKwY~8WQIroVfRXhwO8TVxiROh-RqOHtHdOfksdOp1jo2MgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on May 12 heard public testimony on House Bill 2492A, a measure that would lengthen the waiting period to set aside certain findings related to violations of protection orders from one year to five years and clarify who may seek relief under Oregon’s set‑aside law.

Supporters told the committee the longer period preserves a record that helps courts assess risk and helps survivors access services. Ashley Carson, executive director of the Center for Hope and Safety, said, “Under current law, violations of protection orders may be expunged from an abuser's record after only 1 year. This bill would increase that to a 5 year waiting period.” Sybil Hebb of the Oregon Law Center said the change came after stakeholder negotiation and that “5 years seemed like the more protective measure.”

Proponents described the change as narrowly targeted to contempt findings for violating orders related to abuse and said it would not convert those findings into separate criminal offenses. Sarah Dumont, a deputy district attorney in Clackamas County, said the bill addresses a gap created by State v. Coughlin and “helps protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking” by ensuring contempt findings remain part of the record for set‑aside review.

Opponents, including legal aid and public‑defender representatives, urged caution. John Caulfield of the CLEAR Clinic said the bill “strongly oppose[s] HB 2492A…because at this time, it decreases access to justice for Oregonians in general and does not protect victims.” Ariel Test of the Metropolitan Public Defenders warned the change would make clearing records harder for people trying to rebuild their lives, and noted that contempt findings are currently treated differently from criminal convictions in appellate law.

Committee members probed the choice of five years. Hebb responded that the period was selected to extend beyond typical durations of protective orders (for example, a FAPA order can last two years) so that records of violations remain available when survivors seek civil safety measures or risk assessments.

The public‑hearing record for the bill includes testimony from survivors’ advocates, victim‑services providers, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The measure arrived in the Senate from the House floor with recorded House support (57 ayes, 1 nay). At the close of the session the committee took no final action; the public hearing was closed and the bill moves through the committee process.

Related context: witnesses noted risk‑assessment tools used in domestic‑violence cases (for example ODARA and SARA) rely on histories that can include protective‑order violations and that keeping those records available can inform custody, bail and relocation decisions.","Supporters said increasing the waiting period will help courts and survivors identify abusive patterns; opponents said the change would worsen barriers to housing and work for people with records, including some survivors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reopens debate on bill restricting sale of precise geolocation data; sponsor seeks amendment

Senate Judiciary hears civil remedy for 'cyber‑flashing' that excludes criminal penalties

Committee hears bill to lengthen wait to clear protection-order violations from 1 year to 5