Louisiana’s HB190, recently enacted as a new provision in the state’s Civil Code, sounds innocuous on the surface: it requires software developers to exercise “reasonable care” when creating programs that deliver interactive or personalized user experiences based on user data. But peel back the layers, and this bill reveals itself as a poorly conceived gift to trial lawyers – one that threatens to stifle innovation, burden small businesses and startups, and turn Louisiana’s courts into a playground for frivolous litigation.
The legislation, which passed the House unanimously in under 30 seconds with virtually no debate, adds Civil Code Article 2317.2. It applies to any software – from AI recommendation engines and social media algorithms to mobile apps, personalized dashboards, research tools, and even civic platforms – that adapts to individual user information. The standard is vague: “reasonable care” in design, development, licensing, manufacture, and sale. Crucially, the bill doesn’t create a new cause of action but amplifies existing negligence claims, leaving courts to define what constitutes a breach, negligence or compensable harm.
As the Louisiana Law Institute, which helped draft the bill, admitted in responses to tech industry concerns, the ambiguity is intentional. Details “will be worked out in litigation,” they said – essentially delegating legislative authority to judges and juries through case-by-case lawsuits. This “by design” uncertainty isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. It invites exploratory claims in which plaintiffs can allege that software somehow harmed them – perhaps by recommending the “wrong” content, presenting information in a confusing way, or failing to prevent a perceived injury tied to personalization.
Louisiana already struggles with a reputation as a “judicial hellhole,” where high litigation risks drive up insurance premiums and make doing business expensive. Efforts to curb lawsuit abuse and lower insurance costs – priorities for improving the state’s economic climate – now face a direct contradiction. HB190 piles on more liability exposure without clear boundaries or exemptions. Even if a company ultimately prevails (perhaps through terms-of-service disclaimers), the process itself punishes defendants: they must hire attorneys, endure discovery, and incur disruption and costs. Rather than protecting consumers, weak or meritless claims become little more than a jobs program for attorneys.
The bill’s broad sweep is particularly devastating for smaller players. Large tech firms with deep pockets and in-house counsel can weather the storm, but startups, independent developers, hobbyists, and nonprofits cannot. Consider a tool like StateLens, a civic transparency platform that lets users log in to track legislation and receive personalized updates. Someone could claim that the platform caused confusion or “harm,” triggering a lawsuit that drains resources from innovation and public service.
Worse, the law hands well-funded competitors a weapon. Frivolous lawsuits – much like the patent-trolling tactics that Forbes has documented – allow big players to distract and financially exhaust smaller rivals. The legal process becomes the punishment, siphoning time, money, and focus away from building better products.
Supporters might argue that terms of service or existing law already provide safeguards, but that’s misleading. The bill doesn’t replace product liability rules; it layers on top of them, signaling to courts that they should interpret negligence claims more aggressively. And as drafters noted, the duty arguably “already exists” under general negligence principles – so why codify and amplify it unless the goal is to encourage more litigation?
The rushed passage raises further red flags. Described on the floor as one of the session’s most “carefully vetted” bills, it sailed through without meaningful scrutiny from affected stakeholders. Inquiries for clarification went unanswered. This isn’t how thoughtful policymaking is supposed to go.
Louisiana deserves better. If the intent was to address harms from massive algorithmic systems – like social media feeds fueling addiction or misinformation – then narrow the scope accordingly. A simple amendment could limit application to large-scale platforms while reaffirming existing protections for ordinary software developers, startups, and civic tools. Broad, vague liability expansions do nothing to solve real problems but do plenty to deter participation in the digital economy.
At a time when states compete for tech talent and investment, HB190 sends the wrong message: innovate here, and you risk becoming a litigation target. The result? Higher costs, fewer startups, stifled creativity, and an economy that lags rather than leads. Lawmakers should revisit this gift to trial lawyers before its full damage unfolds – and replace it with precision, not pandemonium.
