(Citizens of a New Louisiana) — Last week, the Louisiana House quietly passed Laurie Schlegel‘s (R-7/10) HB190, a bill that creates a brand-new legal liability for software developers. On its face, the language sounds harmless enough. The bill simply requires developers to exercise “reasonable care” when designing software that provides an “interactive or personalized user experience based on the user’s data.”

But that seemingly modest language hides an enormous scope — one that could even sweep in casual, hobbyist programmers. In fact, our work here at Citizens for a New Louisiana could be swept into it, too.

The bill applies to any software developer whose product interacts with users and adapts based on their information. That description captures a staggering amount of modern technology. It could mean artificial intelligence systems and recommendation engines, mobile applications, research platforms, or data dashboards. In other words, this isn’t a narrow regulation aimed at a handful of tech giants. It potentially applies to virtually every modern software product.

“Let The Courts Figure It Out”

If lawmakers intended to draw clear boundaries, they did not. In fact, the Louisiana Law Institute — the body that drafted the bill — openly acknowledges that the scope is intentionally vague. Their written response to TechNet states that the details will be worked out in litigation. They even said that this uncertainty is “by design.”

During the committee hearing, lawmakers themselves raised the obvious question: Who decides what “reasonable care” actually means? The answer from the bill’s authors was blunt. The statute does not define what counts as negligence, what constitutes a breach of duty, what damages might apply, or even when liability exists. Those decisions, the drafters explained, are “left for the courts to decide.”

That should alarm anyone familiar with Louisiana’s legal climate. This is a state already struggling with skyrocketing insurance costs and a reputation as a judicial hellhole. Litigation risks in Louisiana already drive up costs and drive out businesses and consumers alike. The last thing we need is yet another statute whose practical meaning will only be determined through years of lawsuits — by design!

That is delegation through ambiguity, which asks activist judges to finish writing the law. Said another way, the same legislators who complain about judges legislating from the bench just voted unanimously to empower the practice!

When Even Transparency Tools Get Nervous

This bill caught our attention for a simple reason: its language is broad enough to apply to platforms like StateLens. StateLens is our brand-new civic transparency tool, designed to help citizens and organizations navigate legislation. It organizes public information and presents it in ways that help users understand what is happening at the Capitol. Partners can “log in” to track legislation that interests them — providing an “interactive or personalized user experience based on the user’s data.”

Under HB190’s vague standard of “reasonable care,” a creative plaintiff could claim that the way information was presented caused some type of confusion or harm. Would such a lawsuit ultimately succeed? Probably not. But that’s not the point. Even a weak claim forces a company to hire lawyers, respond to litigation, and spend enormous time and money defending itself. Louisiana does not need another law that effectively functions as a jobs program for attorneys.

More Liability Means Higher Insurance Costs

The economic contradiction here is striking. Louisiana lawmakers have spent years across multiple legislative sessions trying to reduce insurance costs and improve the state’s business climate. It’s difficult to reconcile those goals with a bill that introduces an entirely new layer of litigation risk for one of the most innovative sectors of the economy.

More liability risk leads to higher insurance premiums. Higher premiums raise the cost of doing business. And higher costs discourage participation. It’s the Ronald Reagan quote echoing back to us from history. “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Regardless of the stated reasoning behind the bill, HB190 creates a new legal pathway to target anyone who develops software. During the third special session of 2024, the legislature voted to impose a new tax on digital services. Here in the 2026 session, they’re adding a new layer of regulation. Based on this track record, maybe a vote to subsidize the tech industry should be expected in the 2028 legislative session. In fact, some have argued that the dynamic is already underway, as state officials promote major technology investments supported by incentive programs and tax rebates.

Terms of Service Won’t Save You

Supporters of the bill have argued that traditional software companies can simply limit liability through their terms of service. That argument ignores the real world. Even if a company ultimately wins under its user agreement, it must still hire attorneys and go through the legal process to prove it. You read that right. In civil litigation, the plaintiff only needs to survive early dismissal and compel the defendant to defend the case — and that burden alone can be costly, time-consuming, and disruptive.

The supposed protection of a terms-of-service clause only works after you have already paid lawyers to fight the case. And, by the way, HB190 doesn’t provide for Terms of Service exemptions.

Stacking Liability on Top of Existing Law

HB190 does not replace existing legal claims. It attempts to formalize — and expand — liability under general negligence law, not products liability. That’s a pretty big deal. Software has traditionally not been treated as a “product” under Louisiana’s Products Liability Act. Instead, claims involving software behavior have been handled, if at all, through ordinary negligence principles.

By codifying a vague duty tied to “personalized” or “interactive” systems, HB190 effectively reshapes general negligence law itself, inviting courts to extend liability into areas where it has historically been uncertain or limited. This is not clarifying existing law — it is absolutely expanding it. For large corporations with in-house legal teams, that may be manageable. For startups, small technology companies, and hobbyists, it can be devastating.

A Tool for Crushing Competition

And here is a risk that few lawmakers seem to have considered. When a broad new cause of action exists, it becomes a strategic weapon. Imagine a small startup developing an innovative platform that threatens the dominance of a large technology company. The larger company doesn’t need to win a lawsuit to damage that competitor. It only needs to distract them with the threat of legal jeopardy.

This is not a theoretical concern. Large companies have long used litigation itself as a competitive weapon. As reported by Forbes, well-funded firms have filed frivolous patent lawsuits not necessarily to win on the merits, but to burden and distract smaller competitors with legal costs and slow their growth.

HB190 takes that dynamic and pours fuel on it, giving well-funded actors another avenue to weaponize the courts against smaller, less-resourced competitors. A well-funded corporation could instruct its attorneys to go plaintiff shopping, searching for someone willing to file a claim that the startup’s software failed to exercise “reasonable care.”

Even when those claims ultimately fail in court, the cost of winning can still be devastating. Years of litigation can drain capital, stall growth, and distract brilliant engineers from building the next generation of technology. The legal system itself becomes the weapon — the process becomes the punishment. Instead of solving real problems, developers find themselves worrying about legal exposure or wasting valuable time in meetings with lawyers. That is not a recipe for innovation.

A Bill That Admits It May Not Be Needed

Perhaps the most curious aspect of HB190 is the Law Institute’s own explanation. According to its authors, the duty described in the bill already exists under Louisiana negligence law. If that is true, one obvious question arises: Why pass the bill at all? But that concession raises a deeper concern: if the duty already exists, then HB190 is not merely restating the law — it is elevating and amplifying it. It signals to courts that this category of claims should be taken more seriously and applied more aggressively.

For an unnecessary bill, it sure seems to be moving fast, too. On Tuesday morning, March 17, at 9:41 a.m., I reached out directly to Representative Laurie Schlegel and her legislative office to seek clarification on the scope and implications of HB190. As of this writing, no response has been received. Despite being described on the floor as one of the most carefully vetted bills of the session, the House passed HB190 unanimously in under thirty seconds, with no debate and no questions. In the first five days of a legislative session (scheduled to run until June), this bill has already cleared committee, passed the House floor, and is headed to Senate Judiciary A.

The Simple Fix

Ironically, the problems with HB190 could be addressed with a remarkably simple amendment. One sentence could narrow the bill so that it applies specifically to the kinds of algorithmic systems the author said the bill is intended to address. That would be those large-scale social media recommendation engines and AI systems. A good amendment could do that work while still protecting ordinary software developers, civic transparency tools, and small startups from vague liability exposure.

For example, the bill could be limited to systems that materially control or manipulate the distribution of content to large audiences through automated recommendation algorithms. That’s worlds apart from sweeping in any software that merely personalizes a user experience. Alternatively, lawmakers could clarify that the statute does not create a new cause of action, but simply reaffirms existing negligence principles without expanding them.

Until that safeguard exists, however, HB190 risks doing far more than regulating a handful of powerful technology platforms. It risks opening the courthouse doors to frivolous and “exploratory” lawsuits against anyone who writes software in Louisiana — whether the legislature intended it or not.