[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6342418,"mediaKeyId","2255121-abbeb9f864d9e7e8f9adc528cdb2bf38","parentId",2255121,"title","Long hearing on age verification: supporters cite child‑protection claims; industry warns of privacy, legal and technical risks","audioSeconds",5726,"startMs",3925000,"endMs",9651000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255121-abbeb9f864d9e7e8f9adc528cdb2bf38&start=3925&end=9651","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255121-abbeb9f864d9e7e8f9adc528cdb2bf38/thumbnail_3925000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342418/North-Dakota/Long-hearing-on-age-verification-supporters-cite-childprotection-claims-industry-warns-of-privacy-legal-and-technical-risks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342418-5459a6602873d4495e333e64c839799f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200366&Signature=d2MiJ2GoPa~lVyoWICtKLTQ9ZEHUmH0ZQvNAMby72YdqnsHnvLj9Sy9GQ52UT9pQHnb1h-uokC2NP6PI57x3dGYXMgoE~G5NFlXzaj8ytEoAM4CFQ-0RGGSy7h8ZEBM1jSkSUb~4ZapkMLoSQMix61pFVdceXE3KeOKplTjmZCJZt7HfuGMCQWR6a5afOYXFSRHM2qvVNqIbzBJVdyQ8yT62sKptGPhlbxrnET1qHelYQkLv6nUACD~--5sVEKecpXrh-XI2WmUjZsTJeAqjbxvpf3INHzcMLk-ZsVm1fB9N7OmKJIkzlHmkhlSJztnzDpTYqPfbym4ffCoF9e2dSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Industry and Business Committee opened a lengthy public hearing on Senate Bill 23‑80, a bill that would require manufacturers, operating‑system providers and app stores to take commercially reasonable, technically feasible steps to verify whether primary device users are 18 or older and to block minors from accessing platforms that provide a substantial portion of mature content.

Proponents described the measure as a tool to protect children from early exposure to sexually explicit and violent content. John Begeman, identified in testimony as a representative of Pure Desire (a nonprofit focused on recovery from sexual‑behavior problems), described his own early exposure to explicit material and urged the committee to approve the bill. “If we have a customer by the age of 11, we will have a lifelong customer,” Begeman quoted from an industry statement as evidence of the scale and intent of commercial sites, and said age verification could reduce lifetime harm.

Clinicians and recovery specialists who testified in favor described repeated clinical experience linking early exposure to online explicit content with later relationship problems, compulsive sexual behavior and addiction. Licensed counselor Maggie Blaylock and other therapists urged the committee to prioritize safeguards; they said parental controls and age verification could prevent many children from being exposed.

Child‑protection advocates supported device‑ or platform‑based checks as part of a broader ecosystem of protections. Bob Cunningham of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children told the panel that a device‑based approach can be feasible and that manufacturers already use comparable signals for other features; he said device signals paired with app and site obligations would hold the whole ecosystem accountable.

Industry groups and broadband providers urged caution or opposed the bill. Justin Hill of NetChoice, representing a coalition of technology companies, said the device‑level approach raises constitutional and operational risks and that enforcement has stalled in several states. The App Association’s Caleb Williamson and the Broadband Association’s Carissa Swenson said an App‑Store or device mandate would force many small developers to collect or store sensitive age data and would sweep in apps that are not the source of mature content.

TechND (represented by Terry Efferts) and the Chamber Progress (Corey Marshall) said the proposal could invite privacy harms, create technical burdens that fall on companies not selling mature content, and raise First Amendment concerns. Several technology witnesses recommended focusing verification responsibility on content hosts and app/platform operators that control access to the content, keeping age gates “closest to the harm.”

A few technical witnesses and an age‑verification provider described available methods, including ID‑based checks, third‑party verification APIs, and privacy‑preserving age‑estimation tools (e.g., anonymized facial‑age estimation, voice or behavioral signals). Those witnesses emphasized that age estimation differs from biometric identification and that industry continues to develop less invasive options.

Committee members did not take a vote during the hearing. Several senators said they want more technical detail, edited bill language and time to consider constitutional and implementation questions before acting. The chair allotted 45 minutes per side before the hearing and suggested follow‑up briefings and focused work sessions.

Why it matters

If adopted, the bill would shift the locus of age verification from individual websites to device makers and app stores, a change that supporters say would be more effective in practice but that opponents say would concentrate sensitive data and could burden small app developers and raise constitutional issues. The outcome could affect how adults and minors access social platforms, streaming services and other online material used by North Dakotans.

What supporters said

- Clinicians and child‑advocacy organizations urged lawmakers to act to prevent lifetime harms linked to early exposure.
- Some technical witnesses and international child‑protection groups said a device‑based signal is technically feasible and could be implemented without sending personal identifiers to websites.

What opponents said

- Industry witnesses warned the proposal would force vendors who are not content hosts to collect sensitive age data, create privacy and security risks, and likely face litigation.
- Broadband providers and app‑developer representatives asked the committee to keep the verification obligation with content hosts and encourage parental education and existing parental‑control tools.

Next steps

The committee closed the hearing after roughly 90 minutes of testimony. Members said they will seek additional technical details and legal analysis and will allow time for amendment drafting and stakeholder negotiation before scheduling a committee vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Industry and Business Mon, Feb 10, 2025 9:00 AM-11:45 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Industry and Business Committee heard 90 minutes of testimony for and against Senate Bill 23‑80, a device/app age‑verification proposal intended to restrict minors’ access to mature online content. Witnesses were sharply divided on feasibility, privacy and constitutional risk.","taxTitle","Industry and Business, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28906,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342423,"Senate Industry and Business Committee advances licensing and title bills, rejects grant request for security board",2832,352000,3184000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255121-abbeb9f864d9e7e8f9adc528cdb2bf38&start=352&end=3184","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255121-abbeb9f864d9e7e8f9adc528cdb2bf38/thumbnail_352000.jpg","/articles/6342423/North-Dakota/Senate-Industry-and-Business-Committee-advances-licensing-and-title-bills-rejects-grant-request-for-security-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342423-d4db0332d34d37e62b5a90d9f4ca4301/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200366&Signature=kfvVmEE9Qm3G61fNAlgGq5WpAw9qC5MaSRKX3AqyqLVc0-PjwrullnVq8jnQFIliQE3yQmVBu3aRSBVtxSESuxl-7Q3iD69HgeS-Ik~CP-NmsASaQSWr3GKRmm5S01J9p4YIa~LvBGBqZL3vjnJtPwRxVaVXOCCYQBnjWnFaIoiCG-S9kj2VFg3Zl25fPDewWgOTbMYTDL1N9Q0HGiBz~kG2RxnnL5M0KOx6IzUG3PS-HjIkALOSHTZI4IfUvZyLHxBYQdF-yYTQQGQfcWBktY52va-RxSYE6lTG~RTtr4bU1ThUXjm3y-NYAnZOGbkkJn4yGKQBShFOVkWuIEoU7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Industry and Business Committee on Thursday advanced several bills affecting professional licensing and land-title practice and rejected a proposal to grant state funds to a private security and investigation board.

The committee recommended “do pass” on Senate Bill 2,071, a Board of Counselor Examiners bill that updates renewal and duplicate-license language, and on Senate Bill 23‑56, which adds language to legal descriptions for deeds and contracts for deed. Lawmakers also voted to amend and pass Senate Bill 23‑48, moving provisions governing health‑care sharing ministries out of the insurance title and into the public‑welfare title.

Those measures, committee members said, clarify existing practice or resolve technical concerns and do not create new policy controversies. The committee rejected a standalone appropriation request tied to the Board of Counselor Examiners and declined to approve a separate grant request to the Board of Private Investigation and Security (Senate Bill 22‑66), saying boards should generally meet operating costs through fees rather than additional taxpayer support.

Most votes were unanimous. The committee recorded a 5–0 recommendation to advance SB 2,071 and to advance SB 23‑56 as amended. An amendment to SB 23‑48 to relocate health‑sharing ministry language to the public‑welfare title carried 5–0, and the bill passed the committee as amended 5–0.

Senators expressed reluctance to appropriate general‑fund dollars for recurring board operations. Several members recalled prior recent actions giving boards authority to increase fees or hire staff rather than seeking new appropriations.

On the request tied to Senate Bill 22‑66, asking for an appropriation to reimburse the Board of Private Investigation and Security for costs related to litigation and protest‑related records work, the committee voted 5–0 for a “do not pass” recommendation. Committee members said the costs described were board operations or litigation tasks and that prior session legislation had already increased that board’s fee authority.

The committee also considered an insurance incentive fund proposal (Senate Bill 22‑72). Lawmakers approved amendments proposed by the insurance commissioner but split on the bill’s merits. After a tied/close roll on a do‑pass recommendation, the committee voted 3–2 to return the bill with no committee recommendation so it can proceed to the floor with explanatory votes recorded.

What the committee did not do: the meeting did not appropriate any new general‑fund amounts on the floor and several matters will return for further committee work. The chair said remaining, larger insurance items will be discussed in follow‑up meetings and staff briefings.

Votes at a glance

- Senate Bill 2,071 (Board of Counselor Examiners; renewal/duplicate license language; appropriation request discussed but not included): motion to recommend do pass moved by Senator Klein, seconded by Senator Angott; roll call recorded five ayes, recommendation: do pass, 5–0; carrier: Senator Klein.

- Senate Bill 23‑48 (health‑care sharing ministries): amendment moved to move health‑sharing language into the public‑welfare title; amendment recommendation passed 5–0; motion for do pass as amended passed 5–0; carrier: Senator Klein.

- Senate Bill 23‑56 (legal description language for deeds/contracts for deed): amendment to add \"containing a meets and bounds legal description obtained from a previously recorded interest instrument of conveyance\" moved by Senator Klein and passed 5–0; motion do pass as amended passed 5–0; carrier: Senator Kessel.

- Senate Bill 22‑66 (grant to Private Investigation and Security Board for costs tied to unlawful protest of pipeline): motion for do not pass moved by Senator Kessel, seconded by Senator Klein; roll call recorded five ayes for do not pass; recommendation: do not pass, 5–0.

- Senate Bill 22‑72 (insurance incentive fund): committee adopted amendments proposed by the insurance commissioner (5–0 on the amendments); the motion for a do‑pass recommendation on the amended bill failed on the first roll; the committee then voted 3–2 to return the bill with no committee recommendation; the bill will move to the floor without a committee recommendation and will be carried by Senator Baim.

Who spoke and who represented interests

Committee members who participated in roll calls included Chairman Barta (chair), Senator Klein, Senator Kessel, Vice Chair Boehm, and Senator Engick. Testimony and technical explanations were offered by staff and representatives including Shane Gettle (Samaritan Ministries, health‑sharing industry) and John Ward (North Dakota Land Title Association, title industry). Several senators explained votes and concerns on the record during roll calls.

Why it matters

The bills would change administrative practice for licensing boards and clarify legal descriptions used in land records; both affect regulated professionals (counselors, land‑title professionals) and routine transactions (renewal of licenses, contract‑for‑deed recording). The insurance incentive proposal remains politically contested and will reach the Senate floor without committee backing.

What’s next

Bills that received “do pass” recommendations will move to the Senate for further consideration. The insurance incentive fund (22‑72) will proceed to the floor without a committee recommendation; the security‑board grant (22‑66) will not advance from committee. The committee chair scheduled additional committee work on remaining insurance matters.","The Senate Industry and Business Committee voted Thursday to approve recommendations for several licensing and title bills, defeated a request for a grant to a private security board and left an insurance incentive proposal without committee recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Long hearing on age verification: supporters cite child‑protection claims; industry warns of privacy, legal and technical risks

Senate Industry and Business Committee advances licensing and title bills, rejects grant request for security board