Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Law Institute bill on a duty of care for digital products draws broad opposition; sponsor parks the measure
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 190 would statutorily recognize a duty to 'exercise reasonable care' for interactive software and applications; the Law Institute authors said the article simply recognizes a duty and leaves breach, causation and damages to courts. Dozens of tech and business groups warned the committee the language is broad, could trigger interstate commerce and AI concerns and create litigation risk; sponsor voluntarily deferred the bill for further work.
Representative Schlegel presented House Bill 190, the product of a Louisiana State Law Institute subcommittee, proposing a code article that would recognize a legislative duty to "exercise reasonable care" for applications, programs or software that provide an interactive or personalized user experience. Professor Tom Galligan, co‑reporter for the Law Institute, told the committee the text is intentionally narrow — a statement that the duty exists — and that other negligence elements (breach, causation, damages) would continue to be litigated and shaped by jurisprudence.
The session turned into a prolonged exchange between the authors and opponents. Erin Bridal of the Pelican Institute warned the committee the draft is "incredibly broad," could apply to "any person" and may reach interstate commerce and AI systems in ways that could imperil federal funding (she cited a recent White House executive action discussion) and create a patchwork of state rules that would chill investment and job growth. Industry commenters — including letters and cards from major platform groups and trade associations — flagged the risk of litigation and the lack of definitional certainty about "reasonable care" and the meaning of "interactive or personalized user experience."
Professor Galligan and Law Institute staff said the subcommittee opted for a general negligence duty rather than an LPLA (Products Liability Act) approach because technologies evolve rapidly; they argued the legislature's statement of a duty would guide courts and would not preclude other remedies. Several members said the idea merits further work before a floor vote. The sponsor agreed to voluntarily park HB 190 so stakeholders and staff could refine the draft; the committee held the bill.
