Relating to requirements for specific digital content-blocking capabilities on devices manufactured, distributed, leased, or sold and services distributed, leased, or sold in the state that make the internet accessible, the prohibition of certain restrictions on specific types of speech on social media internet sites, and the collection and remittance of fees for certain related activities, providing for criminal and civil liability for certain violations, and including applicability and contingent effective date provisions

The bill requires such a person to make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure proper functioning of the digital content-blocking capability, to provide routine updates for the digital content-blocking to a consumer who has purchased or leased a device or service containing digital content-blocking, to establish a call center or internet site that allows consumers to report a failure of the digital content-blocking or to report digital content-blocking of an internet site that is not required to be blocked. In addition, such a person is required to investigate a consumer’s report of a failure to comply with the bill, provide the consumer an appropriate update of the digital content-blocking capability within days of the consumer’s initial report, investigate any consumer report of digital content-blocking of an internet site that is not required to be blocked, and if appropriate, enable the consumer’s access to the incorrectly blocked internet site within days of the consumer’s initial report. The bill prohibits digital content-blocking of social media internet sites that have existing processes to manage consumer complaints or digital content-blocking of any internet site that does not contain the following material: 1) obscene material, 2) revenge pornography, 3) sexual exploitation of a minor, 4) child pornography, or 5) the promotion or facilitation of prostitution or human trafficking. The bill also prohibits digital content-blocking of an internet site that has the primary function of serving as a search engine or an internet site that makes movies available that are rated restricted or below. The bill prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or seller from sharing, selling, or distributing a method, source code, or any other instruction to deactivate a digital content-blocking capability unless a consumer who purchases a product submits a written request for deactivation, provides proof the consumer is age or older, signs an acknowledgment that a written warning outlining the dangers of deactivation has been provided by the manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or seller, and pays a one-time $20 deactivation fee. The bill also allows a manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or a seller to charge a consumer an additional fee in order for the manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or seller to deactivate the digital content-blocking capability of the product. The fee must be reasonable and the manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or seller may retain the fee. The manufacturer, distributor, lessor, or seller must annually remit all deactivation fees that are collected to the treasurer of state. The treasurer of state shall deposit all deactivation fees received into the human trafficking and child exploitation prevention fund established in the bill. All moneys deposited or paid into the fund are appropriated and made available to the department of justice to be used to provide grants to governmental and nongovernmental entities and individuals involved with upholding community standards of decency, strengthening families, or developing, expanding, or strengthening programs for child victims of human trafficking to be used for any of the purposes specified in the bill. A person in this state that knowingly manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells a device or that knowingly distributes, leases, or sells a service that makes the internet accessible and that violates a provision of the bill related to digital content-blocking is subject to a scheduled violation of $1,000 for a first offense and $2,500 for a second offense, and commits a simple misdemeanor if the person commits three or more offenses. A person also commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice by violating a provision of the bill related to digital content-blocking. The bill provides for a civil cause of action if a person that manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells a device or that distributes, leases, or sells a service that makes the internet accessible does not respond appropriately to a consumer’s report of a failure of the digital content-blocking capability requirement. A consumer that purchased the product may bring a civil action seeking relief and recover up to $500 in damages per reported failure, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs. The attorney general or county attorney may seek injunctive relief if devices or services are sold or leased without the required digital content-blocking or the manufacturer, distributor, or if a seller fails to maintain the digital content-blocking capabilities or fails to respond as required to a consumer complaint. It is an affirmative defense in a civil action asserting that a consumer purchased a device or service that makes the internet accessible from a person in this state that manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells such a device or that distributes, leases, or sells such a service that the device or service did not digitally block content as required by the bill or that the internet site that is not blocked is the registered domain of an institution or organization that has a scientific, educational, artistic, literary, or similar justification for making the content accessible. The bill requires each adult live entertainment establishment located in the state to collect a $5 fee from each individual allowed entry into the establishment for purposes of adult live entertainment. “Adult live entertainment establishment” is defined in the bill as a place of business where commercial sexual activity, full or partial nudity, sex acts, or sexually explicit performances may be available for viewing by patrons of the establishment. All of the collected fees must be deposited in the human trafficking and child exploitation prevention fund. The director of revenue is required to adopt rules to administer the collection and deposit of such fees. The bill allows a user of a social media internet site who is years of age or older to bring a civil cause of action seeking relief, and to recover up to $75,000 in damages per violation, if the social media internet site is found liable in a court of competent jurisdiction of knowingly censoring the user’s religious or political speech or of using an algorithm to suppress the user’s religious or political speech. “Social media internet site”, “religious speech”, and “political speech” are defined in the bill. It is an affirmative defense in a civil action that the a social media internet site ceased censoring a user’s religious or political speech, or discontinued use of an algorithm to suppress a user’s religious or political speech, in a reasonable amount of time after an allegation of censorship has been reported by a user to the social media internet site. It is not an affirmative defense that the social media internet site censored a user’s religious or political speech because of alleged hate speech by the user. The attorney general or county attorney may seek injunctive relief on behalf of a social media internet site user whose religious speech or political speech has been censored by a social media internet site. The bill allows a social media internet site to censor a user’s speech or to use an algorithm to suppress a user’s speech if the speech calls for an act of violence, is obscene or pornographic in nature, originates from an inauthentic source or involves false impersonation, incites criminal conduct, or involves bullying. “Bullying” is defined in the bill. A social media internet site that censors a user’s speech or uses an algorithm to suppress a user’s speech through error or in response to a court order is not civilly liable. A social media internet site is also not civilly liable if a user of the social media internet site censors the political or religious speech of another user of the social media internet site. The sections of the bill relating to persons in this state that manufacture, distribute, lease, or sell a device or that distribute, lease, or sell a service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer applies to a person in this state that manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells such a device or that distributes, leases, or sells such a service on or after the effective date of the provisions in the bill. The sections of the bill relating to persons in this state that manufacture, distribute, lease, or sell a device or that distribute, lease, or sell a service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer do not apply to a person in this state that manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells a device or that distributes, leases, or sells a service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer if the device or service was produced, sold, leased, or purchased prior to the effective date of the provisions in the bill. The sections of the bill relating to persons in this state that manufacture, distribute, lease, or sell a device or that distribute, lease, or sell a service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer do not apply to the sale of a device or service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer by a person that is not regularly engaged in the business of selling devices or services that make the internet accessible, the owner or operator of an independent third-party router that is not affiliated with an internet service provider, or a person that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state that manufactures, distributes, leases, or sells a device or that distributes, leases, or sells a service that makes the internet accessible to a consumer. The provisions of the bill take effect upon enactment of substantially similar legislation by four additional states. Within days of enactment of substantially similar legislation by the fourth state of the four additional states, the attorney general must advise the governor and the Iowa Code editor of the effective date of the provisions of the bill.