2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB3425

HB3425 expands two existing crimes involving disclosure of a person's home address or telephone number.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the prosecution of certain criminal offenses involving the unlawful disclosure of a residence address or telephone number.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Capriglione, Moody, Curry, Plesa, Noble. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

HB3425 expands two existing crimes involving disclosure of a person's home address or telephone number.
One offense protects people generally.
The separate public-servant retaliation offense additionally requires knowledge of the person's protected status and retaliation for, or action on account of, service or status as a public servant.
The public-servant provision's special evidence rule is expressly confined to offenses involving public website posting: after a written safety demand, failing to remove the information within 48 hours, or specified republication within four years, can constitute prima facie evidence of harmful intent.
Signed June 20, 2025, the law took effect September 1, 2025.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB3425 expands two existing crimes involving disclosure of a person’s home address or telephone number. Previously they covered posting on a publicly accessible website; they now also cover disclosure through an electronic communication, which includes email, text messages and other electronic transmissions. The disclosure must still be made with intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to the person or a family or household member. This is not a blanket ban on sharing contact information. Final law

One offense protects people generally. It remains a Class B misdemeanor, increasing to Class A if the offense results in bodily injury to the person or a family or household member. The exception for public servants disclosing information in their duties as required by or in accordance with state or federal law now also covers electronic communications.

The separate public-servant retaliation offense additionally requires knowledge of the person’s protected status and retaliation for, or action on account of, service or status as a public servant. Its existing third-degree felony classification remains; qualifying bodily injury raises it to second degree. The existing rule allowing prosecution under either of these overlapping offenses, but not both, remains in place. Penal Code Chapter 36 · Chapter 42

The public-servant provision’s special evidence rule is expressly confined to offenses involving public website posting: after a written safety demand, failing to remove the information within 48 hours, or specified republication within four years, can constitute prima facie evidence of harmful intent. That is an evidentiary rule, not automatic conviction, and HB3425 does not extend it indiscriminately to every private electronic message.

Signed June 20, 2025, the law took effect September 1, 2025. The former law governs an offense if any element occurred before that date. Official history

What changed along the way?

The introduced, House committee, engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled versions were compared. Their substantive policy stayed the same: add electronic disclosure, apply the existing bodily-injury enhancement and lawful-duty exception to that disclosure, define electronic communication by reference to Penal Code Section 42.07, and clarify the website-only evidence rule. The existing definition of an honorably retired peace officer was renumbered, not newly created.

No separate amendments are listed in the official amendment index, and the history records favorable committee reports without amendments. This was not an enacted rewrite adding a new penalty scale. Introduced text · Text versions · Amendment index

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

People targeted by harmful electronic disclosure, including public servants and their families, may gain protection where the information was sent electronically rather than posted on a public website. Investigators and prosecutors gain broader coverage, but still must establish the offense’s elements. People accused of qualifying conduct face the existing criminal penalties and defense costs; an ordinary contact-information disclosure without the required harmful intent is not made criminal by this bill alone.

The Legislative Budget Board’s introduced and engrossed fiscal notes anticipated no significant fiscal impact on state or local government. Its criminal-justice assessments recognized that expanding offenses could increase correctional demand, but did not expect a significant effect. These are estimates, not proof that enforcement has no cost. Fiscal note · Criminal-justice impact statement

Review boundary: This explains the enacted changes and retained statutory limits, not whether a particular message is criminal or how a court would decide a constitutional challenge. Linked current statutes can include later amendments; the comparison used the August 31, 2025 historical text.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.