Committee hears age‑verification proposal for material harmful to minors; industry seeks clarifications

A Senate hearing on a proposal to require commercial websites and apps to verify users' ages before permitting access to material deemed harmful to minors drew broad testimony from citizens, faith groups, industry and booksellers.

Senator Sandra Reardon introduced the bill and described an amendment that removes a private right of action and restores the ability to use Section 230 defenses. Reardon told the committee the bill would require operators of commercial websites or apps whose content meeting the bill’s threshold is more than one-third of the site to verify that users are 18 or older.

Steve Dupree, who also spoke earlier, said the concept grew from judicial experience and national research indicating early exposure to explicit content. Dupree cited state models and recent court rulings, saying some strict state laws — including a Texas statute recently litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court context — provide useful precedents. "We set a threshold for the sites and require robust verification methods," he said, adding that the bill prohibits retaining or selling verification data and assigns enforcement to the attorney general rather than private lawsuits.

Industry witnesses asked for clearer definitions and exemptions. Maura Weston of the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association urged explicit ISP clarifications, noting that internet service providers typically cannot see the specific content users view and should be exempt when solely providing access. Bob Dunn, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, supported the bill as a child‑safety measure and praised removal of the private right of action.

Local booksellers and parents expressed concern about ambiguity in the bill’s definition of “material harmful to minors,” the standard of contemporary community standards, and the effect on bookstores, libraries and small websites. Michael Herman, owner of Gibson’s Bookstore, said removing private causes of action reduces his litigation concern but urged the committee to consider unintended consequences for legitimate retailers and libraries.

Committee members asked about the scope — particularly whether major platforms and applications would be covered — and about technical feasibility. Sponsors acknowledged the technical and definitional hurdles and said they expect to work on drafting clarifications and exemptions if the committee advances the measure.

The committee closed testimony on the bill and later moved to executive session; a motion described in the transcript as "ought to pass" was recorded in that session. Members indicated they would continue to refine definitions and exemptions before advancing any final language.