Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Device Filters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate narrowly approves default content-filter bill for new devices after heated debate
Summary
Second Substitute House Bill 72, requiring certain new consumer devices to ship with content filters toggled on by default (conditional on five other states adopting similar rules), passed the Senate after extended floor debate about feasibility and constitutional risk.
The Utah Senate passed Second Substitute House Bill 72, a bill that would require tablets, smartphones and similar devices sold or activated after a set date to include filters or toggles capable of blocking material harmful to minors and to have those filters turned on by default. Sponsor Sen. Mike Harper framed the measure as a child-safety step, saying the requirement would ensure devices "have the filters and the toggles already on capable of blocking that material to be turned on." The bill conditions its effective implementation on adoption by at least five other states and contains a 10-year sunset if the condition is not met.
Floor opponents questioned the technical and constitutional feasibility. Sen. Hendrick (floor critic) called the logistics "problematic" and warned the requirement to act at the "manufacturer's level" is unrealistic, saying, "It simply won't work," and raising concerns about the role of manufacturers, operating systems and service providers in delivering device software. Multiple senators flagged potential interstate-commerce and vagueness issues; one senator said the bill could invite litigation over constitutional and commerce-clause grounds. The sponsor and backers said the bill sends a policy signal and provides time to resolve implementation issues because it does not take effect until five other states act.
On the roll call the clerk recorded that Second Substitute House Bill 72 "had received 19 yay votes, 6 nay votes, 4 being absent" and the bill passed the Senate to be returned to the House for the speaker’s signature. Supporters described the bill as a first step aimed at reducing inadvertent exposure of minors to harmful content; opponents warned of technical impracticality and legal exposure and said parental tools and other solutions merit priority.
The bill’s conditional trigger (other states' adoption) and a sunset were cited repeatedly as protections should national or technical barriers require further revision.
