According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2695 is expected to increase demands on both state and local correctional systems, but the exact fiscal impact is currently indeterminate. The LBB notes that the bill raises the criminal penalties for various drug-related offenses when a social media platform is used in furtherance of the crime. Specifically, this includes enhancing the penalty to the next higher offense category, or—if already a first-degree felony—adding five years to the sentence and doubling the maximum fine.

The uncertainty in fiscal projections arises from a lack of reliable data regarding how frequently defendants currently use social media in connection with the delivery of controlled substances. Without knowing the prevalence of such conduct, the state cannot estimate the likely increase in prosecutions, incarceration terms, or supervision caseloads that would result from the bill’s passage.

Both the Office of Court Administration and the Comptroller of Public Accounts echoed the LBB's conclusion that the fiscal impact cannot be confidently projected at this time. However, it is acknowledged that longer sentences and enhanced charges could lead to increased incarceration costs and strain on community supervision resources, particularly at the local level.

HB 2695 seeks to address a growing trend in drug trafficking by increasing penalties for individuals who use social media platforms to assist in the delivery of controlled substances. The bill reflects a valid concern—namely, the ability of bad actors to exploit social media’s broad reach and anonymity to distribute dangerous drugs, often targeting minors. The proposal raises the punishment by one degree if social media is used in the offense, and for first-degree felonies, adds five years to the sentence and doubles the maximum fine.

However, in its current form, the bill presents serious conflicts with multiple core liberty principles, particularly those related to individual liberty, limited government, and the scope of government authority. By enhancing criminal penalties based solely on the use of a communication platform—without requiring a clear demonstration of intent or defining what "in furtherance" means—the legislation risks criminalizing behavior that is only incidentally or algorithmically linked to a crime. This creates potential for arbitrary enforcement, over-penalization, and an encroachment on protected speech, especially when the same platforms are widely used for lawful expression and communication.

The bill also represents an expansion of government scope. It adds new complexity to the criminal code by introducing a tech-based sentencing factor that increases prosecutorial and judicial discretion without clear standards. That growth in legal authority is not matched by adequate safeguards or narrowly tailored language, which can lead to inconsistent application and further intrusion into private digital activity. Additionally, the Legislative Budget Board notes that the fiscal implications are indeterminate, but longer prison sentences and more severe charges may lead to increased burdens on state and local correctional systems—ultimately resulting in higher costs for taxpayers without measurable public safety outcomes.

While the intent behind HB 2695 is understandable, the legislation would need significant amendments to align with liberty principles. These include inserting a specific intent requirement (to ensure purposeful use of social media to further the crime), defining key terms such as “in furtherance,” and protecting against the misuse of algorithmic or incidental online activity as a basis for enhanced punishment. Without these changes, the bill risks expanding government authority in ways that are both unnecessary and potentially harmful.

For these reasons, the recommendation is NO: AMEND. If the legislature adopts the suggested amendments to narrow the bill’s scope, clarify its application, and ensure due process protections, it may become supportable on final passage. Until then, the legislation as introduced should not proceed in its current form. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO; Amend on HB 2695.

• Individual Liberty: The most serious concern lies in the potential infringement on individual liberty. By enhancing criminal penalties based on a defendant's use of a social media platform, the bill introduces a vague and open-ended trigger for harsher sentencing. Without a clearly defined intent requirement or a narrow definition of "in furtherance," individuals could face longer prison terms for merely posting, messaging, or engaging with online content that becomes connected to a crime—whether intentionally or not. This sets a dangerous precedent: using the method of communication as an aggravating factor can easily spill over into constitutionally protected speech. The bill risks chilling lawful digital expression if defendants begin to fear that online activity—even if innocuous or incidental—could be interpreted as "facilitating" a crime.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill’s philosophy aligns with personal responsibility in one respect: it holds individuals accountable for knowingly using modern tools to commit crimes. If someone purposefully uses social media to coordinate or promote illegal drug sales, they are actively choosing to exploit new methods for old crimes. However, personal responsibility depends on the system recognizing intent and knowledge—a key element this bill currently lacks. Penalizing individuals without proving purposeful use undermines the very idea of holding people accountable for their own actions, and instead punishes circumstances or tools they may not have fully understood or controlled.
• Free Enterprise: The bill doesn’t directly regulate businesses, but it introduces a chilling effect on digital platforms that rely on open communication. If courts increasingly rely on social media data to pursue enhanced penalties, platforms may feel pressure to monitor users more aggressively, potentially over-moderate content, or expand data-sharing with law enforcement to shield themselves from liability or scrutiny. This regulatory creep would disproportionately impact smaller tech startups that can’t afford compliance infrastructure or legal defenses, discouraging innovation and participation in the Texas digital economy. It may also incentivize platforms to restrict services in Texas out of caution.
• Private Property Rights: Private property rights extend beyond physical assets to include digital content and communications. HB 2695 risks infringing on the use of personal accounts, messages, or posts by criminalizing their existence as part of an "enhancement" framework without narrowly tailoring what qualifies. If someone’s property (e.g., social media presence) becomes a liability due to vague statutory language, their rights are indirectly compromised.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the state’s power to punish by creating a new sentencing enhancement tied to online behavior, without sufficient limitations or safeguards. This grants prosecutors and courts broader discretion and creates incentives to pursue harsher penalties based on ambiguous standards. It invites the state deeper into individuals’ online lives and communications, effectively growing government influence without clearly improving public safety. Additionally, as the Legislative Budget Board notes, the fiscal impact is indeterminate, signaling a potential burden on correctional and judicial systems—an expansion of state cost and control without guaranteed benefit.

• SB 1833 (Same As)