Subcommittee debates HB 293’s device-based age filters, technical feasibility and penalties

Chairwoman Pedernal convened a Judiciary subcommittee work session to continue discussion of House Bill 293, which would require certain new mobile devices to ask a user’s age at setup and enable filters intended to prevent minors from accessing obscene material.

The session focused on several recurring themes: whether device-based prompts and filters are technologically feasible across different operating systems, whether the state can or should target devices rather than content providers, privacy and constitutional concerns tied to age verification, and whether criminal penalties in the bill would be appropriate or enforceable.

Members and advocates said the bill’s intent—to reduce minors’ exposure to obscene material online—is widely shared, but they disagreed on how to achieve it. “I think that this bill is really important for the safety of kids,” Representative Kumta said, arguing parents vary in technical ability and that device-level protections could help. Representative McFarland said any statutory language should avoid “infringement upon those individual liberties” and recommended identifying a “minimum viable set of criteria” for products parents can choose.

Several members raised technical and practical objections to a device-focused approach. Representative Turf said requiring devices to carry or enforce a single filter risks being ineffective because the same child could access content on another device or by using different browsers. Turf also cited recent litigation involving a Texas case to argue that compelling companies that publish explicit websites to implement age verification could be a narrower, more targeted regulatory approach.

Others focused on the bill’s enforcement language. Representative Kuttab noted that under current state law it is a misdemeanor to provide a minor with a pornographic magazine and questioned the difference between digital and print distribution. Multiple members flagged a provision in the draft that would make intentional disabling of filters a class B felony, calling that criminal exposure for parents or manufacturers “deeply problematic.” Representative Tourer (remarks recorded under variants in the record) said criminalizing parental choices or adding a private right of action could chill lawful behavior and go beyond what members intended.

Panel members and committee representatives discussed three alternative regulatory loci: - Device manufacturers or device-setup flows (for example, a setup prompt that asks the user’s age and enables filtering by default); - Browser or app stores that distribute browsing software and parental-control apps; and - Content hosts/websites that publish explicit material, which some members said are a more direct target for age verification.

On technical feasibility and user experience, committee members described parental controls already present on most major platforms but noted they can be hard for average users to find and configure. “On the iPhone…you either can go into Screen Time on the device or you can go to Family Sharing and Screen Time and manage it remotely,” Representative McFarland said, adding that user experience (UX) improvements or education might address some concerns. Representative Kouthel described the multiple settings paths she had to navigate on an iPhone to limit web content and said a setup-time prompt could be more user-friendly.

Privacy and identity-verification concerns also surfaced. Some members warned that a requirement that forces users to provide verified identity or to maintain a persistent digital identity could create large privacy risks and run afoul of New Hampshire’s strong privacy traditions. Committee members distinguished the current bill—limited to asking a device user’s age at setup and not requiring ID submission—from a separate proposal considered earlier that would have required uploading a driver’s license.

No formal motion or vote occurred. Chairwoman Pedernal said she will attend a late-month conference with industry stakeholders and recommended further subcommittee work sessions to refine language and consult device makers, browser vendors and privacy advocates. The chair closed the work session with the committee in agreement to continue refining the proposal.

Ending: The subcommittee closed without drafting final language or taking votes. Members asked staff to collect examples (including Utah’s law and technical approaches from major vendors) and to circulate alternative language that narrows scope, clarifies which devices are covered and adjusts enforcement provisions for further discussion at a future work session.