Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to let parenting plans limit parents’ online sharing of children
Summary
Rep. Jody Nelson introduced HB1039 to allow parenting plans to include agreed limits on posting a child’s images or personal information, citing AI deepfakes and online predators; committee members sought clearer definitions and possible amendments on scope and retroactivity.
Representative Jody Nelson introduced House Bill 1039, which would allow parenting plans to include agreed provisions governing the sharing of a child’s images and personal information on social media. Nelson said the proposal grew from a constituent’s experience and the committee’s concern about how AI and monetization of family content can permanently expose children.
Nelson read written testimony from a constituent who argued a child’s digital footprint can become a permanent record that the child did not consent to and cannot meaningfully undo. The testimony cited risks including identity fraud, deepfakes and online predation, and said the bill would be permissive — giving parents and courts an option to define expectations rather than imposing broad limits.
Committee members asked several detailed questions. Representative Greg sought clarity on whether the measure would bind grandparents, new partners or friends; Nelson said the bill applies to the parenting-plan template and therefore governs the parents’ agreement unless they mutually extend it to others. Representatives also pressed whether the bill would be retroactive; Nelson said retroactivity would be resolved through mediation or by a judge in contested cases.
Representative Raymond raised questions about a statutory definition of “social media” — asking whether platforms such as YouTube or TikTok would be covered — and recommended adding “including but not limited to” language to the bill. Several members suggested drafting clarifications before the committee acts; Nelson acknowledged she would accept amendments to clarify scope and that she had consulted family-law attorneys and mediators.
The sponsor and several members emphasized the measure is intended to protect children’s privacy and safety while preserving parental decision-making when both parents agree. The committee closed the hearing after discussion and indicated the sponsor will circulate proposed amendments.
What's next: The bill will be revised to address definitional questions and scope; the committee requested language clarifying platforms covered and whether nonparents can be included by mutual agreement.
