HB 1954
In CommitteeHouse
Critical comm infrastructure
Establishing criminal and civil penalties for destruction of critical communications infrastructure.
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 makes it a class C felony to intentionally damage or disable critical communications infrastructure—including physical facilities and cyber systems—that deliver voice, video, or data services. It also creates a civil lawsuit for victims and adds the offense to Washington’s sentencing guidelines and organized crime statutes.
- Creates a new class C felony offense for intentionally damaging or disabling critical communications infrastructure—including physical and cyber components—used to deliver voice, video, or data services.
- Defines 'destruction of critical communications infrastructure' as causing damage or rendering such services inoperable with intent to cause harm, commit theft, or disrupt service.
- Establishes a civil cause of action, allowing individuals or businesses harmed by such destruction to sue for damages, investigative costs, and attorney fees in superior court.
- Adds 'destruction of critical communications infrastructure' to the list of crimes classified as serious offenses (level II seriousness) for sentencing purposes under the state’s sentencing grid.
- Expands the definition of 'criminal profiteering' to include destruction of critical communications infrastructure, allowing prosecutors to use existing organized crime laws (e.g., racketeering) in related cases.
Who is affected
- Critical communications infrastructure providers — Telecom and utility companies that operate communication networks (e.g., internet, phone, TV services) could face criminal or civil liability if their infrastructure is damaged or disabled by others, and may seek civil recovery if harmed.
- Individuals who damage or disable communication infrastructure — Individuals or groups who intentionally damage or disable communication systems (e.g., cutting fiber lines, disabling cell towers, launching cyberattacks on network systems) could face criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
- General public and businesses relying on communications — Victims of such destruction—such as residents, businesses, or emergency responders—may suffer loss of service, economic harm, or delayed emergency response, and may be able to sue for damages.
- Law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies — Law enforcement and prosecutors gain new tools to investigate and charge offenses involving targeted attacks on communication systems, especially those linked to organized crime or terrorism.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (3)
The bill strengthens protection of essential communications infrastructure — including 911 dispatch, emergency alert systems, and broadband networks — reducing the risk of targeted attacks that could delay emergency response, disrupt disaster recovery, or compromise public safety during crises.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2 (class C felony for intentional destruction)The civil remedy allows individuals and small businesses harmed by infrastructure destruction (e.g., remote workers, e-commerce vendors, telehealth providers) to recover losses and investigative costs, improving accountability and deterrence for attacks that cause tangible economic harm.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3 (civil cause of action)Expanding criminal profiteering to include infrastructure destruction enables coordinated prosecution of coordinated attacks (e.g., ransomware on utilities, coordinated fiber cuts), especially those linked to organized crime or terrorism, thereby enhancing deterrence and investigative tools.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (adding to criminal profiteering and seriousness grid)
Potential Concerns (4)
The bill’s broad definition of “destruction of critical communications infrastructure” — including cyber systems and services delivering voice, video, or data — risks overcriminalization of otherwise low-level or non-harmful conduct (e.g., accidental fiber cuts during construction, minor network misconfigurations), especially where intent is hard to prove and prosecutors have wide discretion.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2 (new RCW 9A.56.370)The civil cause of action allows plaintiffs to recover investigative and attorney fees, which may incentivize litigation by well-resourced plaintiffs (e.g., telecom firms) against individuals or small businesses with limited means, potentially leading to disproportionate legal exposure for minor or unintentional infractions.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3 (civil cause of action)Adding the offense to the seriousness grid and criminal profiteering statute enables enhanced sentencing and use of racketeering tools (e.g., conspiracy charges, asset forfeiture), which may disproportionately target low-level actors involved in protest-related or politically motivated infrastructure disruption rather than high-level organized crime.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 4 (adding offense to seriousness level II and criminal profiteering)The bill may increase local government costs for prosecution, court operations, and public defense without specifying funding sources, potentially diverting resources from other public safety or community services — especially in rural or under-resourced counties.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section (no specific dollar estimate)
Who Is Most Affected
Critical infrastructure providers (e.g., telecom, cable, utility networks) gain new legal tools to seek civil recovery and stronger criminal penalties for attacks on their systems, improving risk mitigation and reducing downtime costs.
Individuals or groups engaging in protest-related infrastructure disruption (e.g., cutting fiber lines, disabling cell towers) face significantly heightened criminal exposure — including felony charges, enhanced sentencing, and civil liability — potentially chilling lawful protest activity.
Small businesses and households relying on reliable communications (e.g., telehealth, remote work, e-commerce) benefit from stronger deterrence and civil recourse when infrastructure is damaged, reducing economic and operational risk.
Law enforcement and prosecutors gain new statutory tools to investigate and prosecute coordinated attacks on infrastructure, especially those tied to organized crime or terrorism, improving public safety response capacity.
Defendants accused of infrastructure destruction face heightened penalties, including enhanced sentencing, asset forfeiture under racketeering laws, and civil liability — raising concerns about due process, especially where intent or causation is ambiguous.