House Bill 1822, introduced in the Pennsylvania House Aug. 26, 2025 and amended in the House Judiciary Committee Sept. 22, 2025, would add a new Chapter 9 to Title 44 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to restrict data brokers from disclosing certain personal information of judges, public officials and other covered persons who have a home address in Pennsylvania.

The measure targets what it calls “protected information,” defined in the bill to include a home address (explicitly covering physical and mailing addresses, parcel and plot identification numbers, neighborhood names, legal property descriptions and GPS coordinates), home telephone numbers, personal email addresses, Social Security numbers or driver’s license numbers and vehicle identifiers such as license plate numbers.

Under the bill, a covered person or an authorized agent may send a written notice to a data broker referencing the act and requesting that the broker cease disclosure of the covered person’s protected information. Once the broker receives that notice, it must not disclose, redisclose or otherwise make the covered person’s protected information available, including on a publicly accessible website, and must comply no later than 10 business days after physical or electronic receipt of the notice.

Coverage durations in the bill differ by category. A “principal person” — defined to include active, former or retired judges, public officials as defined in 65 Pa.C.S. §1102 and certain federal or out-of-state equivalents with a home address in Pennsylvania — would receive nondisclosure coverage for life. An “associated person” — such as certain family members, household members or individuals who provide direct support to a principal person — would receive coverage while connected to the principal person and for 10 years after the connection ends.

The bill establishes both civil and criminal enforcement. A data broker that violates the nondisclosure requirement may be sued in the court of common pleas by the covered person, the covered person’s authorized agent or an assignee. Remedies include the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages computed at $1,000 per violation, punitive damages on proof of willful or reckless disregard, reasonable attorney fees and other appropriate equitable relief. The bill specifies ordinary negligence as the civil standard of fault.

In addition, the bill makes reckless violations a third-degree misdemeanor and intentional violations a second-degree misdemeanor. Time limits for suits and prosecutions are set at four years for civil actions and two years for criminal prosecutions from the date the violation occurred, with similar limits for continuing violations measured from the last date the violation occurred.

The text limits certain defenses and clarifies exceptions. It states that a defendant may not escape liability by pointing to the availability of the protected information from other public sources or public records. It also provides that no prior verification of a covered person’s status is required for the nondisclosure notice to be effective, while allowing an affirmative defense that the person is not a covered person. The bill also notes two exceptions under which disclosure would not violate the chapter: disclosures made with the express authorization of the covered person (provided the authorization is given after the nondisclosure request) and disclosures made solely to facilitate a transaction initiated by the covered person or their authorized agent.

The measure names a range of “authorized agents” who may submit or revoke nondisclosure requests on behalf of covered persons, including trustees acting under a power of attorney, parents or guardians of minors, appointed agents under power of attorney and certain agents of Federal judges or court clerks. The bill says it should be “liberally construed” to accomplish its purpose but preserves obligations for candidates and others to comply with required disclosure and filing requirements and allows residency challenges for candidates.

As of the amendment date listed in the bill header, the measure has been introduced and amended in the House Judiciary Committee; it is not enacted law. Further legislative action would be required for the bill to take effect. The bill text states that, if enacted, the act “shall take effect immediately.”