Bill
S 1252
Creates a civil right of action to sue for doxing, with injunctive relief, damages (including up to treble for bias motive), and attorneys’ fees.
Important discrepancy
- The bill number and docket (S.1252 / Senate Docket No. 2203) and the bill text provided are for "An Act establishing a right to freedom from doxing." However, the bill title you supplied at the top — "Establishes a rebuttable presumption of a hate crime when certain crimes are committed on, in or upon a house of worship" — does not match the text. This summary follows the bill text (doxing reform) as filed in the Massachusetts Senate.
Summary
- Purpose: To create a civil cause of action for "doxing" (the knowing disclosure of another person’s personal identifying information without consent intended to cause fear, stalking, or physical/serious property harm), to make doxing unlawful, and to add “doxing” to an existing statutory provision (chapter 12, section 11H). The bill provides remedies (injunctions, damages, attorneys’ fees), enhanced damages for biased motive, and limited statutory exceptions.
Key provisions
- Statutory insertion: Amends G.L. c.12, §11H by inserting the word “doxing” alongside “threats” (two insertions as specified).
- New civil statute: Inserts G.L. c.214, §3C establishing:
- Definitions:
- “Doxing”: knowing disclosure of personal identifying information without consent intended to cause stalking, physical harm, serious property damage, or to reasonably cause fear for one’s safety or a close relation — where disclosure causes stalking, harm, property damage, or reasonable fear.
- “Personal identifying information”: enumerated items (biometric data; home/work address; email; phone; SSN; driver’s license; license plate; financial account/card numbers; medical/financial/education/consumer/employment information) when combined with name, alias, photo, mother’s maiden name, DOB/place of birth, and not publicly available or authorized for public release.
- “Close relation”: spouse/domestic partner, parent, child, sibling, other household members (including recent residents), significant personal/professional relationships, or a family pet.
- Civil remedy: Targets may sue for injunctive relief, general and special damages, and attorneys’ fees/costs. Plaintiff must prove doxing by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Enhanced damages: If plaintiff proves by a preponderance that the doxing was motivated by protected characteristics (race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship status, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, physical/mental health condition, or disability), the plaintiff may recover up to treble damages in addition to other remedies.
- Parental liability: The parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated minor is liable for any judgment against the minor under this section.
- Exceptions: It is not a violation to disclose personal identifying information when done for:
1) reporting conduct reasonably believed unlawful;
2) reporting a crime to law enforcement;
3) publishing/reporting alleged unlawful conduct or abuse of authority by public officials or law enforcement;
4) lawful, constitutionally protected activity (speech, press, assembly, petition) on public concern;
5) investigating or prosecuting violations of this section.
Who would be affected
- Individuals whose private identifying information is publicly disclosed by another in ways that meet the statutory definition of doxing (victims would gain a civil remedy).
- Persons who publish another’s personal identifying information could face civil liability, including treble damages if biased motive is proven.
- Parents/legal guardians could be held liable for doxing judgments entered against their unemancipated minor children.
Burden of proof and remedies
- Civil standard: preponderance of the evidence.
- Remedies: injunctive relief, special and general damages, attorneys’ fees and costs; up to treble damages for bias-motivated doxing.
Procedural status and timeline (as provided)
- Senate docket filed: 01/17/2025.
- Introduced in Senate: 04/02/2025; read twice and referred to Committee on Finance (record also shows referral to Codes and Judiciary on earlier dates — see note below).
- Committee activity / hearings: Multiple hearing entries schedule/updates for 07/15/2025 (various times and virtual updates).
- Current status reported: REFERRED TO CODES (per header) and earlier referrals list includes Judiciary and Finance. (Records show overlapping/duplicate entries — recommend checking the official legislative website for the current committee assignment and the latest actions.)
Sponsors and related measures
- Sponsors listed: Mark R. Warner (cosponsor), Thomas Roland Tillis (primary), Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. (primary) — (note: these names appear inconsistent with Massachusetts state sponsorship and may reflect data inconsistency; bill text identifies Senator Rebecca L. Rausch as the filing legislator).
- Related/companion bills cited: HR 2596 (companion), SD 2203 (replaces), S 9466 (prior-session).
Considerations and likely impacts
- Establishes a civil legal mechanism against nonconsensual, harmful publication of private identifying information and provides statutory clarity on what constitutes actionable doxing.
- The treble-damages provision for bias-motivated cases could increase deterrence and provide stronger remedies for victims of targeted harassment.
- Exceptions attempt to preserve traditional reporting, law enforcement, and First Amendment-protected activities; legal challenges may arise at the borderlines between protected speech and actionable doxing.
- Practical enforcement may depend on courts’ interpretation of “intent,” the scope of “personal identifying information,” and what counts as publicly “readily apparent.”
For confirmation of current status, committee assignment, or future actions, consult the official Massachusetts legislative website or the Senate clerk records.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
