Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Internet Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill allowing civil suits for minors harmed by pornographic material, offers safe‑harbor for warnings and age checks
Summary
SB185 would create a civil cause of action for minors exposed to pornographic material and establish a safe harbor for distributors that post warnings and make good‑faith age‑verification efforts. Supporters compared the approach to tobacco litigation; opponents raised concerns about causation and legal risk.
The Senate advanced a controversial bill, SB185, that would allow certain civil lawsuits by or for minors who suffer demonstrable harms after exposure to pornographic material while also offering a statutory safe harbor for distributors who post warnings and implement reasonable age‑verification.
Sponsor Senator Weiler framed the measure as a narrowly tailored product‑liability style cause of action: if a minor incurs out‑of‑pocket damages — such as counseling or treatment costs — a plaintiff could bring suit against a distributor under standards similar to other personal‑injury claims. To encourage voluntary industry safeguards, the bill contains a safe‑harbor: a distributor would be protected under Utah law if it both (1) posted a prominent warning that certain material can be harmful to children and (2) made a good‑faith attempt at age verification.
Supporters said the combination of liability exposure and safe‑harbor warnings would prompt online distributors to take age‑verification and warning steps without imposing a total ban. Senator Weiler said the strategy follows the model of past public‑health litigation (he cited Big Tobacco litigation as an inspiration) to change industry behavior.
Opponents raised practical and legal questions: Senator Hilliard and others asked how plaintiffs would prove causation (which vendor or exposure caused harm) and worried about the volume and manageability of suits against internet actors and freelance creators. Several senators asked whether the bill was constitutionally vulnerable; the sponsor said he had consulted the Attorney General’s Office and outside counsel and was confident the bill could be drafted to withstand challenges.
After extended debate the Senate approved the first substitute and moved SB185 to third reading by roll‑call vote. Proponents said the measure is intended to prompt warnings and age checks and to create a legal avenue for measurable harms; critics warned of litigation exposure and evidentiary hurdles.
Next: the bill will appear for third reading where final passage is decided.
