According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 5081 are currently indeterminate due to uncertainties surrounding the cost of implementing a system to manage removal requests of personal information for at-risk individuals. The bill requires the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to develop a mechanism through which judges and judicial employees can submit requests to have their personal information removed from publicly accessible Internet sources. While the policy intent is clear, the cost of developing and operating an adequate system to facilitate this process has not been fully established.

According to the Office of Court Administration, the estimated cost to implement such a system could range from $200,000 to $1,000,000. The variance depends on factors like the system’s complexity, technological features, automation level, and scalability to accommodate potentially high volumes of removal requests. Since the bill permits (but does not require) implementation only if the legislature appropriates funding, the actual fiscal impact will depend on whether such funds are allocated during the appropriations process.

Beyond the technology system, the bill is not expected to result in significant costs related to criminal justice enforcement. Although it creates new criminal offenses related to the posting or failure to remove protected information, the LBB anticipates no significant impact on correctional populations or demand for state correctional resources. Additionally, no significant fiscal implications are expected at the local government level.

HB 5081, while well-intentioned in its effort to safeguard the personal privacy of judicial officers, ultimately conflicts with multiple core liberty principles and raises substantial constitutional and policy concerns. The bill creates an expansive new regulatory regime targeting the dissemination of publicly accessible information, imposing both civil and criminal penalties on private individuals and entities that fail to remove or refrain from sharing covered data following a takedown request. Despite its narrow focus on “at-risk individuals” in the judicial branch, the scope of the bill’s restrictions and enforcement tools extends well beyond what is necessary to achieve that goal.

A key concern is the bill’s overreach into constitutionally protected expression and the public's right to access lawfully obtained information. HB 5081’s prohibition on the online display or transfer of “covered information” applies to a broad set of data categories, many of which are routinely found in public records or shared incidentally through lawful reporting. Although there are exceptions for speech on matters of public concern and voluntary disclosures, the chilling effect on news reporting, watchdog activity, and transparency initiatives cannot be ignored. The bill’s structure invites liability for conduct that may not be malicious, and it risks punishing those who act in good faith without notice of a takedown request.

Additionally, the regulatory and compliance burdens placed on businesses, particularly data brokers, online platforms, and small publishers, are significant. The requirement to remove content within a strict timeline, ensure it is not republished, and assist in identifying further instances of the information introduces costly new obligations. The bill also creates criminal offenses with vague intent requirements and civil penalties up to $500 per day, which could be weaponized through litigation. This runs counter to free enterprise principles and sets a troubling precedent of government-mediated censorship of lawful public data.

From a fiscal perspective, the bill’s implementation relies on the creation of a state-managed system to process removal requests. The Office of Court Administration estimates startup costs between $200,000 and $1 million, depending on the complexity of the system. These funds are not yet appropriated, meaning the policy may either be unfunded or require future legislative action to enable a potentially burdensome government program. For advocates of limited government, the bill's expansion of administrative infrastructure is difficult to reconcile with conservative budgeting principles.

In sum, while judicial safety is a legitimate concern, HB 5081’s methods undermine the very principles of free speech, limited government, and open civic discourse that our system depends on. The bill creates new statutory offenses, regulatory mandates, and information controls that exceed its narrow protective purpose. A more narrowly tailored solution, with stronger protections for speech and less regulatory drag, would be more appropriate. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 5081.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill is framed as a protection of individual privacy for judges and judicial employees, it does so at the expense of broader liberty interests. It restricts the rights of individuals, including journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens, to share information that is publicly available or lawfully obtained. Even though there are exceptions for speech on matters of public concern, the bill opens the door to censorship through vague and expansive definitions of “covered information” and imposes criminal penalties for noncompliance. This risks chilling lawful speech and expression, infringing on First Amendment protections, and setting a dangerous precedent for restricting online content in other areas.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reduces the role of personal responsibility by shifting the burden of protection entirely onto third-party entities, namely data brokers and website operators. Instead of empowering at-risk individuals to use existing legal tools to protect their privacy (e.g., civil injunctions, harassment laws, or protective orders), the bill compels private actors to scrub the internet of designated information under threat of civil fines and criminal charges. This approach dilutes the principle that individuals are responsible for safeguarding their own security and instead centralizes responsibility in the state and regulated intermediaries.
• Free Enterprise: The bill imposes costly and burdensome compliance obligations on private businesses, especially small firms operating in data analytics, real estate, digital publishing, or public records. It forces them to respond to takedown requests within rigid timeframes, scrub content across platforms they control, and manage enforcement with legal liability hanging over them. These mandates act as unfunded regulatory burdens on lawful businesses and create compliance uncertainty. The bill also introduces a form of compelled action on speech-related content, interfering with how businesses use data lawfully for services, reporting, or research. It introduces compliance costs and legal risks that are especially harmful to innovation and smaller market players.
• Private Property Rights: The bill indirectly infringes on digital property rights by compelling individuals and businesses to delete or suppress content from websites and databases they lawfully own or operate. Though real property rights remain untouched, the principle of informational property is undermined when lawful possession and control of data must be ceded based on subjective requests, without a court order or clear due process. While the intent is protective, the mechanism, compelled removal, erodes the right to use and disseminate lawfully acquired data.
• Limited Government: The bill substantially expands the reach of state government by creating new criminal offenses tied to information sharing, delegating regulatory enforcement powers to the Office of Court Administration (OCA), authorizing the creation of a statewide technology system to monitor and manage content removal requests, relying on civil penalties and private rights of action for enforcement, potentially leading to government-facilitated lawsuits against private actors. These expansions increase both the regulatory footprint of the state and the cost of governance. They also erode the principle that the government’s role should be limited to essential functions, rather than becoming an arbiter of what information can or cannot be shared online.

• SB 2459 (Same As)