WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 19

Social media-parental consent for minors required.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Eric Barlow and 5 co-sponsors

HB 19 lowers the culpability standard for owners/occupants who allow underage drinking—from knowingly to recklessly—potentially widening liability for landlords, bars, and hosts.

H Did not Consider for Introduction
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 19

HB 19 — Regards underage possession or consumption of alcohol (Summary)

Status: Referred to committee (filed 2025‑08‑19; first read 2025‑08‑20; referred to Criminal Jurisprudence)

Main purpose

HB 19 amends Ohio Rev. Code § 4301.69 to lower the mental‑state requirement for prosecuting owners or occupants of public or private premises who allow underage persons to possess or consume alcohol. The bill replaces the existing culpability standard of “knowingly” with a lower standard of “recklessly” (i.e., proof that the person consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk).

Key provisions

  • Amends § 4301.69(B) so that an owner or occupant of any public or private place may be culpable for permitting an underage person to remain on the premises while possessing or consuming beer or intoxicating liquor under a recklessness standard (rather than the current knowingly standard).
  • Preserves current statutory exceptions: permitting underage possession/consumption is lawful if the alcohol is provided by a parent, non‑underage spouse, or legal guardian who is present, or given by a physician in the regular course of practice, or for established religious purposes.
  • Clarifies that an owner is not liable for acts or omissions of a lessee unless the owner authorizes or acquiesces in those acts.
  • Retains and restates other provisions in § 4301.69 governing:
    • Rights and obligations of persons who engage accommodations (hotels, inns, cabins, campgrounds, restaurants);
    • Prohibitions and diversion options for underage persons (e.g., courts may order diversion programs for juveniles or adults charged with underage possession/consumption);
    • Parent/guardian obligations not to permit minors to violate this section;
    • Duty of operators of lodging/campground facilities to make the statute available in writing to patrons;
    • Definitions used in the section (e.g., “underage person” = under 21; “minor” = under 18; “drug of abuse,” etc.).

Who would be affected

  • Owners and occupants of private and public premises (including landlords, homeowners, bars, restaurants, lodging operators) — increased prosecutorial exposure because recklessness is easier to prove than knowledge.
  • Lessees and businesses that host events — potential for liability if owners are shown to have acquiesced.
  • Hospitality industry (hotels, campgrounds, restaurants) — administrative duties (making provisions available in writing) remain.
  • Underage persons — existing prohibitions, diversion programs, and penalties for juveniles/adults who possess or consume remain in place.
  • Parents, guardians, non‑underage spouses — existing exceptions preserved but parental permitting remains regulated.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Filed: 2025‑08‑19
  • First read: 2025‑08‑20
  • Referred to: Criminal Jurisprudence committee (status: pending committee action as of filing)
  • No effective date is specified in the provided text; enactment would depend on further legislative action and any date in a final enrolled version.

Expected impact

  • Legal/enforcement: Lowering the mens rea from knowingly to recklessly could make it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions against property owners, hosts, or occupiers who allow underage drinking when they consciously disregarded an obvious risk. The change may broaden enforcement against private hosts and businesses.
  • Compliance: Businesses and property owners may respond by increasing signage, monitoring, or contract protections (leases/house rules) to limit exposure; hospitality operators may change booking and supervision policies.
  • Courts: Potentially more prosecutions and diversion petitions; impact depends on prosecutorial priorities.
  • Fiscal: No fiscal estimate provided in the bill text; any administrative or enforcement costs would be driven by changes in enforcement activity.

If you want, I can draft a short explainer contrasting the legal difference between the “knowingly” and “recklessly” standards and examples of how prosecutions or defenses might change under HB 19.

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

Sign in to ask a question.