HB5238

Regular Session

Relating to the criminal offense of disrupting a meeting or procession.

LowStandard timeline

Low Cost

Effective:2025-05-29

Enforcing Agencies

Local Law Enforcement (Police/Sheriff) • District Attorneys and County Prosecutors

Compliance Analysis

Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation

Implementation Timeline

Effective Date: May 29, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).
Compliance Deadline: Immediate. Organizations must update digital evidence retention policies now to be protected for their next scheduled virtual meeting.
Agency Rulemaking: None. This is a Penal Code amendment; however, expect guidance from the Attorney General regarding jurisdictional venue (where the "virtual" crime technically occurred) within the next 6-12 months.

Immediate Action Plan

Update Disclaimers: Add the TPC 42.05 criminal warning to all meeting invites and waiting room screens by Monday.
Configure IT Retention: Verify that your conferencing platform is set to record sessions and save chat logs automatically; disable "auto-delete" features.
Brief Security Teams: Provide your internal security or legal team with the contact information for the local Police Department's Cyber Crimes Unit.
Review Insurance: Confirm with your broker that "criminal interference" with virtual operations is covered under your current Cyber Liability policy.

Operational Changes Required

Contracts

Terms of Use/Service: Immediately update the disclaimer for all virtual events (webinars, shareholder meetings). Insert a clause citing Texas Penal Code 42.05, explicitly stating that electronic disruption is a criminal offense and violators will be referred to law enforcement.
Vendor Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Review contracts with platform providers (Zoom, Teams, etc.). Ensure you have the contractual right to request and receive unredacted server logs and IP data within 24 hours of a disruption incident.

Hiring/Training

Moderator Training: Train meeting hosts to distinguish between "protected dissent" (verbal disagreement) and "electronic disturbance" (hacking, audio-bombing).
Incident Response: Staff must be trained to not simply end a meeting during a hack, but to preserve the "scene" (screenshots, recording retention) before ejecting the disruptor.

Reporting & Record-Keeping

Log Retention: Configure IT systems to retain meeting metadata (IP addresses, entry/exit logs, chat history) for a minimum of 90 days.
Evidence Preservation: Establish a "Chain of Custody" protocol. If a meeting is disrupted, the recording and logs must be isolated and hashed immediately to ensure admissibility in court.

Fees & Costs

No New State Fees.
Insurance: Potential minor impact on Cyber Liability policies. Insurers may require proof of "reasonable security measures" (passwords, waiting rooms) to pay out claims related to business interruption caused by criminal hacking.

Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations

Definition of "Electronic Disturbance": The statute includes "hacking" but leaves "disturbance" vague. It is unclear if flooding a chat box with emojis or unmuting to shout slogans constitutes a criminal "disturbance" or protected speech.
*Guidance:* Treat technical interference (preventing others from hearing/seeing) as criminal. Treat content interference (rude comments) as a moderation issue, not a legal one.
Jurisdictional Venue: The law does not specify if the crime occurs where the disruptor sits, where the server is located, or where the host resides. Until case law settles this, file police reports in the county where the meeting host is physically located.

Need Help Understanding Implementation?

Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.

Schedule Consultation

Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.

Legislative Timeline

This bill's path through the Texas Legislature

TopicsCrimes Crimes--miscellaneous Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure--sentencing & Punishment Electronic Information Systems

Official Analysis

View HRO Analysis View All Bill Documents

BILL ANALYSIS

H.B. 5238

By: Lopez, Ray

Delivery of Government Efficiency

Committee Report (Unamended)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Under current state law, it is illegal to obstruct or interfere with a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or a verbal utterance. However, the law does not adequately address disruptions of events that occur in virtual or hybrid settings. The bill author has informed the committee that, as virtual events have become increasingly common and as public and governmental bodies continue to rely on virtual platforms for meetings and events, there have been instances of individuals intentionally disrupting virtual proceedings through electronic interference, including hacking or accessing these proceedings without authorization. H.B. 5238 seeks to provide law enforcement officers and prosecutors with clearer authority to act in cases where digital disruptions impede lawful proceedings.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

H.B. 5238 amends the Penal Code to do the following regarding the offense of disrupting a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering:

·clarifies that the conduct constituting the offense applies whether the event is in person or virtual; and

·expands the conduct constituting the offense to include intentionally obstructing or interfering with the event by electronic disturbance, including hacking, of any virtual component of the event.

The bill applies only to an offense committed on or after the bill's effective date. An offense committed before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For these purposes, an offense was committed before the bill's effective date if any element of the offense occurred before that date.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

House Authors

Rep. Ray LopezDemocrat · Primary Author

Joint Authors

Giovanni Capriglione (R)

Coauthors (2)

Senate Sponsors

Sen. Juan HinojosaDemocrat · Primary Sponsor

Cosponsors (1)

Donna Campbell (R)

Bill Text(with markup)

H.B. No. 5238

View bill text in multiple formats on Texas Legislature website

Fiscal NoteView Original

	AN ACT
	relating to the criminal offense of disrupting a meeting or
	procession.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1. Section 42.05(a), Penal Code, is amended to read
	as follows:
	(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to prevent
	or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, whether in
	person or virtual, the person [he] obstructs or interferes with the
	meeting, procession, or gathering by:
	(1) physical action;
	(2) [or] verbal utterance; or
	(3) electronic disturbance, including hacking, of any
	virtual component of the meeting, procession, or gathering.
	SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only
	to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
	An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
	governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,
	and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
	purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
	effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred
	before that date.
	SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas

FISCAL NOTE, 89TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION


April 15, 2025

TO:	Honorable Giovanni Capriglione, Chair, House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency

FROM:	Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board

IN RE:	HB5238 by Lopez, Ray (Relating to the criminal offense of disrupting a meeting or procession.), As Introduced

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.

The bill would amend the offense of disrupting a meeting or procession by adding the conduct of obstruction or interference by electronic disturbance, including hacking, of any virtual component of the meeting, procession, or gathering.

It is assumed that any impact on state correctional populations or on the demand for state correctional resources would not be significant.

Local Government Impact

It is assumed that any fiscal impact to units of local government associated with enforcement, prosecution, supervision, or confinement would not be significant.

Source Agencies:

212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council

LBB Staff:

JMc, RStu, AMr, MGol, NTh

Related Legislation

Explore more bills from this author and on related topics

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about HB5238

What does Texas HB5238 do?

HB5238 amends the Texas Penal Code to explicitly classify the disruption of virtual or hybrid meetings via "electronic disturbance" (including hacking) as a Class B Misdemeanor. Effective immediately, corporations, trade associations, and HOAs conducting business virtually have legal recourse against "Zoom-bombing," provided they maintain the necessary digital evidence to support prosecution. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: May 29, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).

Who authored HB5238?

HB5238 was authored by Texas Representative Ray Lopez during the Regular Session.

When was HB5238 signed into law?

HB5238 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 29, 2025.

Which agencies enforce HB5238?

HB5238 is enforced by Local Law Enforcement (Police/Sheriff) and District Attorneys and County Prosecutors.

How urgent is compliance with HB5238?

The compliance urgency for HB5238 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.

What is the cost impact of HB5238?

The cost impact of HB5238 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.

What topics does HB5238 address?

HB5238 addresses topics including crimes, crimes--miscellaneous, criminal procedure, criminal procedure--sentencing & punishment and electronic information systems.

Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025

Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?

Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.