Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Product Liability Tech Minors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate judiciary panel rejects bill to create product-liability duty against tech platforms over harms to minors
Summary
After hours of debate and amendment, the Senate Judiciary A Committee voted down HB 190, a proposal that would have recognized a statutory duty of "reasonable care" for interactive applications toward minors; supporters said amendments narrowed scope, but opponents warned of litigation risk and federal conflicts.
A bill that would have given parents and guardians a new civil cause of action against makers of interactive applications for harms to minors failed in the Senate Judiciary A Committee on May 5.
Representative Schlegel introduced HB 190 as a statutory recognition that providers of certain interactive applications and related products owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect minors from foreseeable harms. The measure drew extensive debate over scope, evidence standards and economic consequences.
The committee adopted several narrowing amendments before the final vote: the duty would apply expressly to minors, require foreseeability of harm, require expert testimony to establish causation and, the amendment states, would not impose product-liability claims against manufacturers. "We narrowed the bill to deal directly with children and clarified the evidentiary bar," Representative Schlegel said in closing remarks.
Tom Galligan, co‑reporter for the Louisiana Law Institute’s torts committee and a professor at LSU Law, described the amendments to members and emphasized limits the panel had added: "We made explicit that the duty extends only to minors and requires expert testimony and foreseeability," he said. He also noted uncertainty in statutory definitions about whether software is treated like a tangible product under existing law.
Opponents warned the bill could prompt a wave of litigation and collateral economic effects. Erin Bindley of the Pelican Institute told the committee that, in her view, the bill reaches artificial‑intelligence tools and could trigger federal policy consequences: "If this language is read to capture AI tools, it may expose the state to federal pushback and could put federal broadband funding at risk," she said, adding concerns about litigation risk for employees and companies in the state’s growing technology sector.
Attorney Richard Decote, who has practiced family law for decades and testified on other custody bills at the same hearing, argued the statute could have broad, unpredictable consequences in litigation practice and public life.
When a motion to report HB 190 as amended was put to a roll call after an objection, the committee recorded a majority opposed and the motion failed.
What happens next: with the committee vote failing, HB 190 will not move forward from Judiciary A in its current form. The sponsor indicated an intent to revisit product and related legislation next year.
Sources and provenance: The reporting above is drawn from committee testimony and roll‑call proceedings conducted May 5, 2026, during the Senate Judiciary A Committee meeting (committee transcript segments related to HB 190).
