SB 661 modifies Maryland law to clarify when intercepted communications (like phone calls or texts) can be used as evidence in criminal court. It allows such evidence if: (1) at least one party was outside Maryland during the communication, (2) the interception wasn’t done by Maryland law enforcement, and (3) all parties were co-conspirators in a violent crime. For other cases, it sets strict conditions for admissibility, including requiring prosecutors to notify defendants 14 days in advance and proving the evidence is more relevant than alternatives. The bill directly affects criminal defendants, prosecutors, and law enforcement handling wiretap evidence in Maryland courts. It takes effect October 1, 2026.
SB 632 creates a new Office of State Elected Officials Information Privacy within Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services. It allows state elected officials (the "protected individuals") to request that their personal details - such as addresses, phone numbers, and email - be removed from public online sources like government websites, social media, or social networks. The bill also establishes criminal penalties for intentionally posting an official’s personal information online under certain circumstances. This replaces the existing Address Confidentiality Program for domestic violence survivors with a dedicated system specifically for protecting state elected officials’ privacy.
SB 310 prohibits the Maryland Judiciary Case Search system from referencing records of traffic violations committed by minors (under 18) under the Maryland Vehicle Law or other traffic laws. It directly affects minors who receive traffic citations, ensuring these records are not displayed in public online searches. The bill amends Maryland's Criminal Procedure law to require the case search system to omit all references to such minor traffic violations. This change takes effect October 1, 2026, and does not alter the existence of the underlying records.
SB 351 requires Maryland auto insurers to disclose when they use programs that track driving behavior (like speed or braking) and establish clear processes for policyholders to correct errors in that data. It limits the types and amount of driving data insurers can collect, bans using such data to cancel policies or refuse renewals, and prohibits insurers from raising premiums in increments of less than six months after a policy starts. The law also mandates insurers to adopt governance plans to prevent unfair discrimination in how driving data affects rates. These changes apply to all private passenger vehicle insurance policies in Maryland, taking effect October 1, 2026.
HB 1456 requires real estate websites, social media platforms, and other commercial entities to verify that the person advertising a residential property for sale or lease is either the legal owner or their authorized agent before publishing the listing. Commercial entities must maintain this verification for at least three years and immediately remove any listing published without proper verification. Violations would be treated as unfair, deceptive, or abusive trade practices under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, subject to enforcement and penalties. This bill directly affects online property listing services and real estate platforms that publish residential property advertisements. It aims to prevent fraudulent listings by mandating ownership verification as a standard practice.
HB 883 prohibits AI developers from making or causing AI to make claims that the AI is a behavioral health provider or can deliver behavioral health care services. It requires AI sold to Maryland consumers to include clear notices stating users are interacting with AI (not a human) and to detect suicidal thoughts or self-harm, automatically referring users to crisis services. Violations carry civil penalties up to $1 million per offense, with funds directed to Maryland’s Behavioral Health Workgroup Investment Fund. The law directly affects AI developers and sellers operating in Maryland, focusing on preventing misleading AI interactions in mental health contexts.
SB 932 requires social media platforms operating in Maryland to display the city and country (derived from IP address) of each adult user whose account is visible to a Maryland user. It applies to platforms like Facebook or Instagram, directly affecting both the platforms (which must implement this display) and Maryland users (who gain visibility into the general location of other users they interact with). The law explicitly excludes minors' locations from display and defines "general geographical location" to exclude precise GPS data. This is a consumer protection measure focused on transparency, not data collection or sharing.
SB 528 prohibits video streaming services (like Netflix or Disney+) from transmitting commercial advertisements louder than the accompanying video content to Maryland consumers. It directly affects internet-based streaming platforms, excluding traditional TV broadcasters and cable operators. The law requires services to comply with federal loudness standards set by the FCC under the Federal Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act. Violations would be treated as unfair trade practices under Maryland's consumer protection law, with enforcement through existing penalty provisions.
SB 387 prohibits large food retailers (15,000+ sq ft) in Maryland from using dynamic pricing (real-time price changes based on demand or AI) or consumer surveillance data (like location or biometric tracking) to set prices for individual customers. It also bans using protected class data (e.g., race, gender) to deny accommodations or advantages to consumers. The bill further prevents retailers from reducing union-guaranteed employee benefits without negotiating with union representatives. These provisions aim to regulate pricing practices, prevent discriminatory data use, and protect collective bargaining agreements, with violations subject to enforcement under Maryland’s consumer protection laws.
HB 172 allows Maryland municipalities to authorize code, parking, and traffic enforcement officers to use body-worn cameras during their duties. It expands the legal definition of "law enforcement officer" to include these municipal officers for camera use, requiring cities to adopt policies that align with state standards for body-worn camera use. The bill mandates that municipalities publishing such policies must follow guidelines similar to those for police body cameras, including notifying individuals when recording is occurring. The law takes effect October 1, 2026, and does not require municipalities to implement the policy.
