Judiciary Committee
February 6, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Carolyn Bosn | Bills Heard: 4 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB642: Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act
Introduced by: Sen. Eliot Bostar | Testimony: 1 proponents, 4 opponents, 4 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator Bostar's AI consumer protection bill drew fire from tech industry groups warning it could stifle innovation, but the introducer said everyone who worked with him got what they wanted—only those who refused to negotiate came in opposition.
Why it matters: Nebraska would become one of the first states to comprehensively regulate high-risk AI systems affecting housing, employment, and health care decisions. But the bill faces constitutional questions and industry concerns about compliance costs for small businesses.
What they're saying: - Proponents: The bill strikes a careful balance between innovation and consumer protection, requiring impact assessments and transparency without banning AI outright. - Opponents: "Overly broad definitions" like "consequential decisions" and "substantial factor" create regulatory uncertainty that will chill investment. Tech Nebraska warned the bill duplicates existing civil rights laws. Chamber of Progress said impact assessment requirements threaten to expose business strategy. Cicero Institute offered alternative model language focused on specific harms. - Neutral: Insurance and banking regulators said they're already regulating AI through existing frameworks and appreciated exemptions in the bill.
By the numbers: Six proponent comments, seven opponent comments, and four neutral testifiers submitted written positions.
What's next: No vote was taken. Senator Bostar said amendments addressing stakeholder concerns are forthcoming and promised to continue working with industry groups. The bill remains in committee.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. Holdcroft Unclear: Sen. Hallstrom, Sen. Rountree
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB172: Child Pornography Prevention Act Amendment
Introduced by: Sen. Brian Hardin | Testimony: 8 proponents, 1 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Nebraska would criminalize AI-generated child sexual abuse material under Senator Hardin's bill, but a defense attorney warned it could ensnare teenagers experimenting with ChatGPT.
Why it matters: AI can now create realistic sexual images of children in minutes for free. Law enforcement says current law creates loopholes allowing offenders to escape prosecution. But the bill's felony penalty for minors under 19 raises concerns about criminalizing teenage curiosity.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Attorney General Mike Hilgers said AI models trained on real images of children means even purely artificial CSAM is connected to actual abuse. State Patrol reported 7,000+ reports of generative AI exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A Douglas County investigator with 16 years on the FBI Child Exploitation Task Force said the bill closes a significant loophole. - Opponents: Criminal defense attorney Spike Eickholt worried a 15-year-old using ChatGPT to generate sexual content would face a Class III felony and lifetime sex offender registration. He requested an affirmative defense for minors similar to the sexting statute. - Neutral: A UNL engineering professor explained how generative AI works and confirmed models require billions of real images to function.
By the numbers: 77 proponent comments, no opponent comments, one neutral comment submitted for the record.
What's next: No vote was taken. Senator Hardin indicated willingness to work with Spike Eickholt on the affirmative defense concern and clarified that the gambling device definition in the bill was moved, not substantively changed.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Storer Unclear: Sen. Hallstrom, Sen. McKinney, Sen. DeBoer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB383: Parental Rights in Social Media Act
Introduced by: Sen. Tanya Storer | Testimony: 6 proponents, 3 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator Storer's bill requiring age verification and parental consent for social media accounts drew passionate support from parents and law enforcement but fierce opposition from tech companies and civil liberties groups citing First Amendment concerns.
Why it matters: Nebraska youth mental health is in crisis—suicide rates jumped 62% from 2007-2021, correlating with social media adoption. But every similar law passed in other states has faced court challenges, and none have survived intact.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Attorney General Hilgers said investigators set up accounts as 12-year-olds and immediately received explicit sexual content. A pediatrician cited CDC data showing 20% of teens suffer major depression and 59% experience online harassment. Proponents noted 80% of parents support the requirement and that privacy-protecting verification methods exist—including hand-scanning technology with 98% accuracy that stores no data. - Opponents: Tech groups and ACLU argued the bill violates First Amendment rights of minors and adults. They warned it conflicts with Nebraska's Data Privacy Act and that no similar legislation has survived court challenge. Chamber of Progress worried parental access could be weaponized in abusive households. ACLU suggested less restrictive alternatives like device-level parental controls. - Senators: DeBoer explored whether the bill could be structured as a civil cause of action rather than government mandate. McKinney worried about waiting for Supreme Court clarity. Bosn expressed frustration that opponents offer no solutions, only objections.
By the numbers: 68 proponent comments, 20 opponent comments, one neutral comment submitted for the record.
What's next: No vote was taken. Senator Storer said she's confident the bill is constitutionally sound and urged the committee to advance it to General File so Nebraska can protect its youth.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. DeBoer, Sen. Storm Skeptical: Sen. McKinney Unclear: Sen. Holdcroft, Sen. Hallstrom, Sen. Bosn
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB371: Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act Amendment
Introduced by: Sen. Wendy DeBoer | Testimony: 0 proponents, 0 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator DeBoer's bill updates Nebraska's 2019 intimate image law to cover deepfakes, which have increased 550% online since that law passed.
Why it matters: Deepfake intimate videos can be created in under 25 minutes for free, with 98% of deepfakes online being sexual in nature. The 2019 law has already generated recoveries for victims in Nebraska, but didn't contemplate this technology.
What they're saying: DeBoer noted the bill provides victims with civil recourse—allowing them to sue perpetrators for damages—rather than relying solely on criminal penalties that don't compensate victims. She called it a "nice bookend" to her legislative career.
By the numbers: 13 proponent comments submitted for the record; no opponents or neutral testifiers.
What's next: No vote was taken, but Senator DeBoer suggested the bill "sounds like something that might go on a consent calendar," indicating likely smooth passage.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Storer, Sen. Bosn
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
The committee heard four bills on February 6, 2025. LB642 (AI Consumer Protection Act) and LB383 (Parental Rights in Social Media Act) generated the most testimony and debate, with significant industry opposition to both bills. LB172 (Child Pornography Prevention Act Amendment) received overwhelming support with only one opponent raising concerns about penalties for minors. LB371 received minimal testimony and appears likely to advance without controversy. Committee Chair Bosn expressed frustration with opponents of LB642 and LB383 who offered objections without providing alternative legislative language. The hearing highlighted tensions between protecting children online and concerns about First Amendment rights, privacy, and regulatory burden on technology companies.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.