WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1210

An Act concerning the disclosure of the home address and home contact information of certain public safety officials

194th Legislature (2025-2026)

Protects home addresses/phones of judges, prosecutors, and police and their families; requires removal after notice and lets victims sue for damages; one-year to comply.

Hearing scheduled for 07/15/2025 from 01:00 PM-08:00 PM in A-2
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1210

Summary — S.1210 (Senate Docket No. 285 / Massachusetts)

Title: An Act concerning the disclosure of the home address and home contact information of certain public safety officials

Purpose / Intent

To protect the private home address and unpublished home telephone number of certain public safety officials (judicial officers, prosecutors, law enforcement officers) and their immediate family members by restricting public disclosure and creating a private civil remedy for violations.

Note: The materials provided also include unrelated legislation from other jurisdictions with the same bill number (Idaho and federal sponsors listed). This summary focuses on the Massachusetts bill text filed by Senator Michael O. Moore (Senate Docket No. 285 / S.1210).

Key provisions

  • Creates a new chapter (Chapter 93M) in the Massachusetts General Laws governing nondisclosure of home contact information.
  • Prohibited conduct: Upon receipt of written notice from an authorized person, a person, business, or association must not disclose or re-disclose on the Internet (or otherwise make available) the home address or unpublished home telephone number of a “covered person.” Removal must occur no later than 10 business days after receipt of notice.
  • Who is a “covered person”: active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers, law enforcement officers, or prosecutors, and immediate family members who reside in the same household.
  • Authorized requesters: covered persons themselves or specified designees (e.g., U.S. Marshals’ designee for federal judges; court clerks for state judges), estate executors or power-of-attorney for incapacitated or deceased covered persons, and parents/guardians on behalf of minor immediate family members.
  • Immediate-family change: an immediate family member who submitted notice and subsequently no longer resides with the covered person must notify the publisher within 30 days.
  • Remedies and penalties: aggrieved persons may sue in Superior Court; available relief includes actual damages (but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation), punitive damages for willful/reckless violations, reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and equitable relief.
  • Exemptions: “Person” does not include a government records custodian; news media are not liable for failure to remove information from previously printed newspapers.
  • Compliance timeline: compliance not required until one year after enactment, though entities may comply earlier on a voluntary basis.

Who is affected

  • Protected: judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers (current, former, retired) and immediate household family members.
  • Regulated: individuals, businesses, websites, associations, and data brokers that publish or republish home contact information (excluding certain government custodians and print newspaper archives as noted).
  • Enforcement: private civil enforcement by covered persons.

Procedural status & next steps

  • Filed: 01/10/2025 by Michael O. Moore (Judiciary).
  • Hearing: scheduled for 07/15/2025 (per docket information).
  • If enacted, the statutory provisions include a one-year delayed effective compliance requirement.

Practical implications

  • Would increase privacy protections for public safety officials and their household members by requiring removal of sensitive home-contact data on notification and by providing a private cause of action with statutory minimum damages.
  • Likely to affect data brokers, online publishers, and platforms that aggregate personal contact information; may raise implementation and compliance costs.
  • Contains a limited press exemption for previously printed newspapers but could raise questions about online archives and First Amendment balancing in practice.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.