HB 1765
In CommitteeHouse
Subscriber emails/PRA
Exempting email addresses of individuals who subscribe to regular communications and updates from local agencies.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill adds a new exemption to Washington’s Public Records Act to protect the email addresses of people who sign up to receive regular updates from local government agencies — such as newsletters or service alerts — ensuring those addresses are not disclosed in response to public records requests. It does not change how agencies collect or use the information, only how it may be shared publicly.
- Adds a new exemption to Washington’s Public Records Act (RCW 42.56.230) for email addresses submitted to local agencies for the purpose of subscribing to regular communications (e.g., newsletters, alerts, updates).
- Clarifies that the exemption applies only to email addresses — not names, physical addresses, or other identifying information — and only when submitted for subscription purposes.
- Does not affect other public records exemptions (e.g., for students, patients, employees, or financial data), which remain unchanged.
- Applies to all local agencies in Washington, including cities, counties, school districts, and special-purpose districts.
- Does not require agencies to collect or store subscriber email addresses differently — only that if collected, such addresses are exempt from disclosure.
Who is affected
- Subscribers to local agency communications — Residents who sign up to receive updates, newsletters, or other regular communications from local government agencies (e.g., city councils, counties, special districts) will have their email addresses protected from public disclosure under public records requests.
- Local government agencies — Local government agencies (cities, counties, special districts, etc.) will be required to keep subscriber email addresses confidential and will not be required to disclose them in response to public records requests.
- Public records requesters — Members of the public who file public records requests will no longer be able to obtain email addresses of individuals who subscribed to local agency updates — unless the subscriber gave explicit consent or disclosure is otherwise required by law.
- Journalists and researchers — Journalists, researchers, and watchdog groups may face limitations in identifying or contacting subscribers when investigating agency outreach or engagement efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (2)
Protects subscribers’ privacy by preventing their email addresses from being exposed in public records requests — reducing risks of spam, phishing, identity theft, or harassment, especially for vulnerable populations (e.g., domestic violence survivors, immigrants, low-income residents) who may not have the resources to mitigate misuse of their contact information.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, new subsection (14) to RCW 42.56.230Encourages greater participation in local government communications by reducing privacy concerns — especially for low-income, elderly, or digitally vulnerable residents who might otherwise avoid signing up for service alerts due to fear of unsolicited contact or data scraping.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, new subsection (14) to RCW 42.56.230
Potential Concerns (3)
Reduces public transparency by shielding subscriber email lists from disclosure, limiting the public’s ability to assess whether government outreach is inclusive, equitable, or potentially discriminatory — especially in contexts like emergency alerts, school communications, or housing assistance where underrepresented groups may be disproportionately excluded or overpoliced.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, new subsection (14) to RCW 42.56.230Increases administrative burden on local agencies to track and segregate subscription email addresses from other records to comply with the exemption, even though the bill states no new costs — agencies must still implement internal protocols to avoid accidental disclosure, which may strain small offices with limited staff or IT resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, new subsection (14) to RCW 42.56.230May hinder investigative journalism or academic research into how emergency alerts (e.g., wildfire evacuations, AMBER alerts) are targeted — if agencies cannot disclose who received which alerts, it becomes harder to assess whether vulnerable populations (e.g., non-English speakers, low-income residents) are being systematically excluded from life-saving communications.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, new subsection (14) to RCW 42.56.230
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income, elderly, and digitally vulnerable residents who rely on local agency newsletters for critical services (e.g., utility shutoff warnings, SNAP updates, housing assistance) gain stronger privacy protections — reducing exposure to scams and harassment. However, they may also be less likely to know how to opt out or manage digital consent if privacy settings are unclear.
Local agencies gain legal clarity and reduced liability risk when handling subscriber data, but must still comply with other privacy laws (e.g., CCPA, FERPA) and may face increased internal compliance work — especially in smaller jurisdictions without dedicated IT staff.
Journalists and researchers lose a tool for accountability — particularly in cases where public records requests were used to verify whether emergency alerts, school communications, or housing programs were being distributed equitably or disproportionately excluded marginalized groups.
Spam operators, data brokers, and political campaigns that previously scraped public records for contact information lose access to a source of low-cost leads — benefiting their bottom line but reducing transparency in civic engagement efforts.