Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 1375 establishes a new civil cause of action under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Chapter 98C) allowing individuals to sue for damages arising from exposure to obscene or harmful material. The bill defines “obscenity” by referencing existing criminal statutes in the Penal Code and includes material deemed “harmful to minors.” It applies to individuals and commercial entities that directly engage in or knowingly benefit from the distribution or transmission of such material.

The legislation extends liability beyond corporate entities to majority shareholders or members who use a company to promote or profit from obscenity, holding them jointly and severally liable when the conduct was for their personal benefit. Notably, the bill disallows several common legal defenses, such as ignorance of the law or reliance on prior non-binding court rulings, even if those decisions had not yet been overturned.

Prevailing plaintiffs in these civil actions are entitled to recover actual damages, including for mental anguish, as well as court costs and attorney’s fees. The court may also award exemplary (punitive) damages. Additionally, each occurrence of harm from obscenity can give rise to a separate claim. The law emphasizes a broad and liberal application of its provisions, encouraging robust enforcement through civil litigation as a supplement to existing criminal statutes.

The Committee Substitute for HB 1375 retains the core framework of the originally filed bill but introduces notable changes in structure, scope of liability, and procedural clarity.

One of the most significant changes is in Section 98C.004. In the original version, liability for business owners was applied to any “shareholder or member” of an entity. The substitute narrows and specifies this to “majority shareholder or member,” adding a higher threshold of ownership and influence before imposing joint and several liability. This change raises the bar for holding individuals accountable, aiming to focus on those with controlling interests who actively use the entity to engage in obscenity.

The substitute also removes the detailed severability clause found in the original bill. The original version included an extensive multi-paragraph severability and enforcement framework (Section 2), outlining judicial and executive responses in the event of partial invalidation. This included mandates for the attorney general to adopt fallback rules and allowed for writs of mandamus. In contrast, the Committee Substitute omits this entirely, possibly to streamline the bill and avoid potential constitutional conflicts over judicial authority and separation of powers.

Stylistically and structurally, the substitute version incorporates modest edits for clarity and conciseness. For example, Section 98C.004(b) is more tightly worded, and certain phrases—such as “knowing the character and content of the material”—are emphasized to clarify intent requirements for liability. Additionally, while both versions include protections for bona fide news organizations and certain internet intermediaries, the Committee Substitute presents these exceptions with cleaner legislative drafting.

In summary, the Committee Substitute version of HB 1375 retains the intent and framework of the original filing but narrows the liability scope, removes complex severability enforcement provisions, and improves legal precision, likely in response to stakeholder feedback or constitutional concerns.

The original version of HB 1630 and its Committee Substitute are substantively identical in their purpose and most of their provisions: both seek to expand eligibility for the Homes for Texas Heroes home loan program to include licensed social workers, placing them alongside existing eligible public service professionals such as educators, peace officers, and emergency responders. The bill achieves this by adding social workers to the relevant sections of the Government Code and defining the term by referencing the Occupations Code.

Additionally, while the Committee Substitute may reflect minor, non-substantive changes—such as formatting, clarification of legislative intent, or adjustments made in committee for consistency with drafting standards—there are no new eligibility criteria, procedural changes, or financial modifications introduced in the substitute. The bill’s core mechanisms, including the use of existing bond proceeds to finance the loans and the income eligibility thresholds, remain unchanged between versions.

In summary, the difference between the introduced bill and the Committee Substitute is procedural rather than policy-oriented. The substitute version retains the full intent and structure of the original while possibly improving clarity and increasing legislative support through co-authorship.

Author (1)

Nate Schatzline

Contact the Author

Rep. Nate Schatzline

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0562

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.410

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1375 will have no significant fiscal implication to the State of Texas. The LBB determined that any costs arising from implementation of the bill could be absorbed within existing resources. This suggests that the Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, and the Office of the Attorney General—agencies likely involved in any increased litigation or rulemaking—do not expect a need for additional appropriations to accommodate the bill's enforcement or administrative impacts.

Similarly, the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Since the bill creates a new civil cause of action rather than a criminal offense, its effect would be primarily within civil courts, where individuals may file lawsuits. While it may lead to some increase in civil filings, the volume is not projected to strain local judicial systems or require expanded infrastructure or staffing at the local level.

Overall, the fiscal analysis reflects that the bill’s design—focused on private enforcement through civil litigation—shifts the burden of action and costs onto individuals seeking redress, rather than requiring direct or substantial state or local government expenditures.

Vote Recommendation Notes

The core objective of HB 1375 is to create a civil liability mechanism targeting those who engage in or profit from the distribution of obscene content, particularly material harmful to minors. The bill reflects a strong public policy interest in shielding children from exposure to sexually explicit or exploitative material, especially online. By using the civil court system to provide remedies for victims and imposing liability on commercial entities and responsible individuals, the bill offers a deterrent without expanding government bureaucracy or criminal codes.

From a liberty principles perspective, the bill aligns with Personal Responsibility by holding individuals and businesses accountable for knowingly engaging in harmful conduct. It also supports Individual Liberty for victims by granting them standing to seek redress. At the same time, it maintains reasonable protections for freedom of speech and enterprise by excluding bona fide news organizations and internet service providers that are not creators of the content. Importantly, the bill does not create new criminal penalties or impinge upon constitutionally protected expression, as it builds upon established definitions of obscenity and harmful material under Texas Penal Code Chapter 43.

The Committee Substitute improved the bill by narrowing liability to majority shareholders, reducing the risk of unjustified lawsuits against passive investors, and allowing prevailing defendants to recover attorney's fees, promoting fairness in litigation. The bill also includes strong severability language to preserve enforceable portions if any section is struck down by courts, signaling legislative intent to defend the statute's core functionality.

Given the clear legislative intent to protect minors, the limited fiscal impact, and the balance between accountability and constitutional safeguards, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1375. It strengthens civil remedies in a narrowly tailored way without significantly expanding state power or infringing on lawful conduct.

Individual Liberty: The bill seeks to protect the individual liberty of minors by restricting their exposure to obscene or harmful material, which the state has long recognized as a legitimate governmental interest. While some might raise concerns about freedom of expression, the bill is carefully framed around existing legal definitions of "obscenity" and "harmful material" under the Texas Penal Code—both categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, HB 1375 explicitly exempts news organizations and internet service providers from liability when they are not creators of the obscene content. As such, the bill targets illicit material while preserving constitutionally protected expression, representing a cautious support of individual liberty.
Personal Responsibility: This principle is at the heart of the bill. The bill assigns civil liability to individuals and commercial entities that knowingly participate in or benefit from the distribution of obscene content, especially to minors. It also holds majority shareholders or members of such entities accountable if they use their companies for direct personal gain through obscene conduct. By empowering victims to seek civil redress and discouraging negligence or willful complicity, the bill reinforces the idea that individuals and businesses must be accountable for the societal harms they cause or profit from.
Free Enterprise: The bill introduces civil liability that could increase legal exposure for commercial entities, particularly online platforms. While the intent is to curtail the harmful spread of obscene material, overly broad application or vague enforcement could create a chilling effect on digital content providers or user-generated platforms. That said, the bill includes exemptions for third-party intermediaries like internet service providers and search engines, provided they do not create the content themselves. Still, the risk of litigation could disincentivize some businesses from operating in Texas or offering open platforms, thus posing a modest threat to the principle of free enterprise.
Private Property Rights: The bill respects private property rights by focusing on civil accountability rather than direct government seizure or interference. It targets misuse of private commercial entities when they serve as conduits for distributing obscene material. The inclusion of joint and several liability for majority owners who exploit their companies for unlawful purposes discourages abuse of corporate structures to shield wrongdoing. By enhancing victim recourse without infringing on lawful ownership or operations, the bill upholds this principle.
Limited Government: The bill expands access to civil courts but does not create new regulatory agencies or criminal laws. It relies on private litigation rather than state enforcement to deter obscene conduct. However, the breadth of the liability and the removal of several standard legal defenses (e.g., mistake of law, reliance on non-binding court precedent) may encourage aggressive legal actions that increase the judiciary's role in adjudicating these disputes. This could incrementally expand the role of courts in mediating cultural or moral disputes, which is a mild tension with the ideal of limited government.

View Bill Text and Status