WisconsinWebsites would verify ages before showing certain sexual material
If approved, Wisconsin businesses running websites mostly containing material harmful to minors would verify visitors’ ages and could face lawsuits or penalties for violations.
What it does
Websites with more than one-third sexual material covered by the bill would verify visitors’ ages before providing access, while protecting news and service providers in specified cases.
Businesses would not be allowed to knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute online material that the bill defines as an obscene depiction of a purported child.
People could sue over violations, and the state could investigate and seek court orders or $100 to $10,000 penalties when businesses improperly kept verification information.
Argument forAge checks could make it harder for minors to reach websites whose content is mostly sexual material, while the bill protects bona fide news coverage.
Argument againstBusinesses may collect sensitive identifying information for age checks, creating privacy concerns even though the bill bars keeping it after access is decided.
More detail
A business entity would have to use a reasonable age-verification method before knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing covered material online. This applies to websites where more than one-third of the material is harmful to minors, meaning people under 18. The verification system could use government identification or commercially reasonable public or private transaction data. A business could not knowingly keep identifying information after granting or denying access. The rule would not apply to bona fide news or public-interest broadcasts, videos, reports, or events. Internet service providers, virtual private networks, search engines, and cloud services would generally be protected when they did not create the content. The text states no start date or end date.
A business entity would be barred from knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing an obscene depiction of a purported child online. The rule covers online material that meets the text’s definition of obscene material and depicts a purported child. Internet service providers, virtual private networks, search engines, and cloud services would generally not be responsible when they did not create the content. The bill does not state that a criminal conviction is required for this prohibition. The text states no start date or end date.
People alleging a violation could sue for actual and punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees; the state could seek injunctions and civil forfeitures for certain privacy violations. Private lawsuits could address the age-verification and obscene-material rules, while state enforcement described here targets businesses that knowingly retain identifying information after age verification. A person would not have to finish administrative remedies before filing suit. The state could seek a civil forfeiture of $100 to $10,000 for each covered privacy violation. The text allows restoration of financial losses before a final judgment in a state injunction case. The text states no start date or end date.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Apr 3Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 4-3-2026Major
- Apr 2Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026To Governor
- Feb 23Report correctly enrolled on 2-23-2026Minor
- Feb 23LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 1)
- Feb 23LRB correction
- Feb 19Action ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 19Senate Amendment 2 concurred in
- Feb 18Received from Senate amended and concurred in as amended (Senate amendment 2 adopted)Major
- Feb 18Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 18Read a third time and concurred in as amendedPassed Senate
- Feb 18Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Feb 18Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 18Senate Amendment 2 adoptedMajor
- Feb 18Senate Amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to authorMinor
- Feb 18Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 17Placed on calendar 2-18-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Jan 7Senate Amendment 2 offered by Senator WanggaardMinor
- 2025
- Dec 3Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator WanggaardMinor
- Nov 12Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and Families, Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Nov 12Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and Families, Ayes 3, Noes 2Minor
- Nov 12Executive action taken
- Oct 8Public hearing held
- Mar 21Read first time and referred to committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and FamiliesMinor
- Mar 20Received from AssemblyMinor
- Vote recorded PASSAGE. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 20Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 20Read a third time and passed, Ayes 69, Noes 22, Paired 2Passed Assembly
- Mar 20Rules suspended
- Mar 20Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Mar 20Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Mar 20Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative GoebenMinor
- Mar 20Read a second timeMinor
- Mar 18Placed on calendar 3-20-2025 by Committee on Rules
- Mar 17Representative O'Connor added as a coauthor
- Mar 13Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Vote recorded Report passage recommended by Committee on State Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 2. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 13Report passage recommended by Committee on State Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 2Minor
- Mar 13Executive action taken
- Mar 12Public hearing held
- Mar 10Read first time and referred to Committee on State AffairsMinor
- Mar 10Introduced by Representatives Goeben, B. Jacobson, Penterman, Kreibich, Dittrich, Allen, Knodl, Wichgers, Murphy, Brill, Mursau, Behnke and Piwowarczyk; cosponsored by Senators Wanggaard, Jacque, Feyen and NassIntroduced
TechnologyConsumer ProtectionCivil Rights & Voting