Fact Check: Clarifying claim cellphone 'touch law' implemented in 31 states on June 5, 2025
On June 5, 2025, a 'touch law" banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving went into effect across 31 U.S. states.
Rating:
Context:
Pennsylvania's "touch law" — officially known as "Paul Miller's Law" — went into effect on June 5, 2025. The other states mentioned in social media posts already had such laws in place before this date, some as far back as 2008.
In early June 2025, an online rumor purported that a "touch law" — a law banning the use of handheld cellphones while operating a vehicle — was going into effect across 31 U.S. states as of June 5, 2025.
The claim was shared across social media platforms like Facebook (archived) and especially TikTok (archived, archived), with users offering advice to their followers about staying safe and vigilant while driving. The widespread nature of the rumor led some Snopes readers to reach out to us via email questioning its veracity.
However, the claim that a "touch law" went into effect in 31 U.S. states on June 5, 2025, is mostly false. Although the 31 states featured in the social media posts do, in fact, have such laws, it was only Pennsylvania's that went into effect on that date.
The Pennsylvania law was dubbed "Paul Miller's Law," named after a man "who was tragically killed in a crash with a tractor trailer in 2010 in Monroe County, as the result of a distracted driver who reached for their phone while driving," according to a news release issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
An article on the online tabloid website The U.S. Sun that listed "31 states where drivers face 'touch law'" was published in late May 2025. When combined with timely reports about the Pennsylvania law going into effect, it appeared to result in some of some users conflating the new law with statutes already in place in other states.
The other states' "touch laws," typically referred to as "distracted driving" or "hands-free" laws, have been in effect for varying lengths of time since as far back as 2008.
Below are the 30 other states listed in The U.S. Sun article with links to each state's respective law or to state government pages about their version of the law.
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
An overview of distracted driving laws on the Governors Highway Safety Association website, a nonprofit organization seeking to improve traffic safety and influence national policy, confirmed that these 31 states, along with "D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands," have laws in effect that "prohibit all drivers from using handheld cellphones while driving."
The nonprofit also pointed out that "all but Alabama and Missouri are primary enforcement laws," meaning a law-enforcement officer can cite a driver for a violation without requiring any other offense to make a traffic stop.
So while it is true that the 31 states in question have laws prohibiting the use of handheld cellphones while driving, it is false to claim that their laws all went into effect on June 5, 2025.
§ 46.2-818.2. Use of Handheld Personal Communications Devices in Certain Motor Vehicles; Exceptions; Penalty. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-818.2/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"2023 New Hampshire Revised Statutes :: Title XXI - Motor Vehicles :: Chapter 265 - Rules of the Road :: Section 265:79-c - Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition." Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"2024 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: Title 39 - Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation :: Section 39:4-97.3 - Use of Wireless Telephone, Electronic Communication Device in Moving Vehicles; Definitions; Enforcement." Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-39/section-39-4-97-3/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
161385360554578. "31 States with Fines up to $450 for 'touch Law' Violations - Even at Red Lights." The US Sun, 27 May 2025, https://www.the-sun.com/motors/14333679/touch-law-fines-wrong-place/.
AB 1785- CHAPTERED. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1785. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Cell Phone Use and Texting | NY DMV. https://dmv.ny.gov/points-and-penalties/cell-phone-use-and-texting. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"Colorado Hands-Free Law." Colorado Department of Transportation, https://www.codot.gov/safety/distracteddriving/colorado-hands-free-law. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Connecticut Cell Phone Laws. State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, https://portal.ct.gov/dmv/-/media/dmv/documents/cellphonpdf.pdf.
Distracted Driving. https://www.michigan.gov/msp/divisions/ohsp/safety-programs/distracted-driving. Accessed 10 June 2025.
---. https://transportation.wv.gov:443/DMV/Safety/Pages/Distracted-Driving.aspx. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Distracted Driving | Department of Motor Vehicles. https://dmv.vermont.gov/enforcement-and-safety/road-safety/distracted-driving. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Distracted Driving | Governors Highway Safety Association. https://www.ghsa.org/state-laws-issues/distracted-driving. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Distracted Driving | Iowa Department of Public Safety. https://dps.iowa.gov/distracted-driving. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Distracted Driving | Tennessee Traffic Safety Resource Service. https://tntrafficsafety.org/distracted-driving. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Distracted Driving - What Is a Text Worth? Illinois State Police, https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/TrafficResources/1-230.pdf.
Distracted Driving Laws | Minnesota Department of Public Safety. https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/safe-driving-information-and-laws/traffic-safety-laws/distracted-driving-laws. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"Hands-Free Law." Mass.Gov, Massachusetts State Police, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/hands-free-law.
Hands-Free Law – Drive Safe Alabama. https://drivesafealabama.org/safety-initiatives/hands-free-law/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Hands-Free Law – Home | Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. https://www.gahighwaysafety.org/hands-free-law/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Hands-Free Law Takes Effect on Monday | Missouri Department of Transportation. https://www.modot.org/node/33694. Accessed 10 June 2025.
HB2318 - 541R - S Ver. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/54leg/1R/bills/HB2318S.htm. Accessed 10 June 2025.
HDOT and Its Partners Remind Drivers to "Put the Phone Away or Pay," for Distracted Driver Awareness Month. https://hidot.hawaii.gov/blog/2024/04/15/hdot-and-its-partners-remind-drivers-to-put-the-phone-away-or-pay-for-distracted-driver-awareness-month/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
INDOT. "Hands-Free Indiana." INDOT, 15 July 2021, https://www.in.gov/indot/safety/hands-free-indiana/.
Maine's Hands-Free Driving Law. Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, https://www.maine.gov/future/sites/maine.gov.dps.msp/files/inline-files/Hands-free%20Buckslip_print.pdf.
Oregon Department of Transportation : Distracted Driving : Safety : State of Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/safety/pages/distracted.aspx. Accessed 10 June 2025.
'Paul Miller's Law' Effective June 5. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/penndot/news-and-media/newsroom/statewide/2025/-paul-miller-s-law--effective-june-5.html. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Phones Down. It's the Law. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/phonesdown. Accessed 10 June 2025.
RCW 46.61.672: Using a Personal Electronic Device While Driving. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672. Accessed 10 June 2025.
RI HandsFree Law - Rhode Island Rhode Island Department of Transportation. https://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/HandsFree/index.php. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Save a Life: Put the Cell Phone Down. Maryland Department of Transportation, https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OC/DSWW_FAQ_Sheet.pdf.
Section 49-1401A – Idaho State Legislature. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t49ch14/sect49-1401a/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
State of Delaware - Office of Highway Safety (OHS) - Distracted Driving. https://ohs.delaware.gov/distracted.shtml. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"Texting While Driving." Wikipedia, 25 May 2025. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texting_while_driving&oldid=1292085127.
Traffic Laws. https://ots.nv.gov/Traffic_Laws/Traffic_Laws/. Accessed 10 June 2025.
"What to Know about Pa.'s New Distracted Driving Law." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2025/05/28/pennsylvania-new-distracted-driving-law/stories/202505270076. Accessed 10 June 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ethics officials say Georgia PAC tied to Ponzi scheme illegally sought to influence elections
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia's Ethics Commission says a political action committee linked to what federal investigators have called a Ponzi scheme illegally sought to influence elections. The complaint, filed Wednesday, says the spending came from the now-dissolved Georgia Republican Assembly PAC between 2021 and 2024. The committee was headed by Edwin Brant Frost V, the son of a man named in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit as heading a scheme that took at least $140 million from hundreds of investors. A company named First Liberty Building & Loan promised investors big returns from making high-interest loans to businesses with short-term cash needs, but the SEC complaint says Edwin Brant Frost IV skimmed $17 million for himself, his relatives and their affiliated companies. More than $1 million of that went to political spending that entrenched the Frost family's influence in Republican politics in Georgia, Alabama, Maine and other states, investigators said. But while much is disclosed in campaign contributions, Wednesday's filing raises questions about whether the Frosts were spending on politics in undisclosed ways. The complaint says the PAC could legally give to candidates, but it never registered as an independent committee to directly advocate for and against candidates while spending more than $220,000 to do so. 'The ethics complaint filed today represent our initial charges against the Georgia Republican Assembly-PAC,' Ethics Commission Executive Director David Emadi said in a statement. 'Our investigation remains ongoing and additional charges may be coming at a future date, but we intend to aggressively pursue all violations of Georgia law committed by the GRA which illegally influenced elections in 2022 and 2024.' State Rep. Dale Washburn said undisclosed spending is pernicious. The Macon Republican was attacked in a 2022 mailing cited in the complaint, 'The whole dark money thing, where you can attack a candidate with a name that really doesn't represent who is behind the attack, I think that is a problem and it should be addressed," Washburn said. No criminal charges have been announced in the alleged financial fraud. Brant Frost V wasn't named in the civil lawsuit filed by the SEC. However, the SEC in a subpoena filed last week sought information about activities of Brant Frost V as a First Liberty employee. The younger Frost made appearances on conservative talk shows promoting First Liberty, and some investors said they dealt with Brant Frost V when putting money into First Liberty. The younger Frost also garnered attention when he incorporated a new lending firm — Heartland Capital LLC. Brant Frost V filed the incorporation papers on June 26, the day before First Liberty announced it had gone bust. Brant Frost V didn't immediately respond to an email and a text message Wednesday. A lawyer for Brant Frost IV didn't respond to an email. Conflict with another political group The PAC shared a name with the Georgia Republican Assembly, a group that seeks to push the Republican Party further to the right. The assembly often endorsed and the PAC often contributed to insurgent Republicans who opposed established GOP leaders. But assembly President Nathaniel Darnell said that while the GRA authorized and promoted the PAC, it was a 'totally separate entity.' 'The entire time the PAC was in operation, the Frosts controlled it with zero oversight from the GRA organization," said Darnell, who said he personally lost an unspecified amount of money invested in First Liberty. The Frosts had a falling-out with the GRA following this year's state Republican convention. They and other supporters of Georgia GOP Chairman Josh McKoon publicly resigned after the GRA expelled Katie Frost, the sister of Brant Frost V. Katie Frost led a nominating committee that recommended delegates vote against a number of GRA-endorsed party officer candidates. Campaign disclosures show the Frosts and associated companies donated a majority of the PAC's money. One focus was supporting Republican challengers who opposed late state House Speaker David Ralston, whom the GRA viewed as a corrupt moderate. But the complaint shows the PAC also didn't disclose spending in school board races in Coweta County, where the Frosts live, and in a county commissioner race in neighboring Meriwether County. Washburn said he believed he was targeted over his support for Ralston and for a bill that would have allowed some immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Georgia universities and colleges. 'I was kind of taken aback by those mailers when they happened and was honestly angered by them because I thought they were very deceitful and misrepresented some things,' he said.
Associated Press
15 hours ago
- Associated Press
Ethics officials say Georgia PAC tied to Ponzi scheme illegally sought to influence elections
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia's Ethics Commission says a political action committee linked to what federal investigators have called a Ponzi scheme illegally sought to influence elections. The complaint, filed Wednesday, says the spending came from the now-dissolved Georgia Republican Assembly PAC between 2021 and 2024. The committee was headed by Edwin Brant Frost V, the son of a man named in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit as heading a scheme that took at least $140 million from hundreds of investors. A company named First Liberty Building & Loan promised investors big returns from making high-interest loans to businesses with short-term cash needs, but the SEC complaint says Edwin Brant Frost IV skimmed $17 million for himself, his relatives and their affiliated companies. More than $1 million of that went to political spending that entrenched the Frost family's influence in Republican politics in Georgia, Alabama, Maine and other states, investigators said. But while much is disclosed in campaign contributions, Wednesday's filing raises questions about whether the Frosts were spending on politics in undisclosed ways. The complaint says the PAC could legally give to candidates, but it never registered as an independent committee to directly advocate for and against candidates while spending more than $220,000 to do so. 'The ethics complaint filed today represent our initial charges against the Georgia Republican Assembly-PAC,' Ethics Commission Executive Director David Emadi said in a statement. 'Our investigation remains ongoing and additional charges may be coming at a future date, but we intend to aggressively pursue all violations of Georgia law committed by the GRA which illegally influenced elections in 2022 and 2024.' State Rep. Dale Washburn said undisclosed spending is pernicious. The Macon Republican was attacked in a 2022 mailing cited in the complaint, 'The whole dark money thing, where you can attack a candidate with a name that really doesn't represent who is behind the attack, I think that is a problem and it should be addressed,' Washburn said. No criminal charges have been announced in the alleged financial fraud. Brant Frost V wasn't named in the civil lawsuit filed by the SEC. However, the SEC in a subpoena filed last week sought information about activities of Brant Frost V as a First Liberty employee. The younger Frost made appearances on conservative talk shows promoting First Liberty, and some investors said they dealt with Brant Frost V when putting money into First Liberty. The younger Frost also garnered attention when he incorporated a new lending firm — Heartland Capital LLC. Brant Frost V filed the incorporation papers on June 26, the day before First Liberty announced it had gone bust. Brant Frost V didn't immediately respond to an email and a text message Wednesday. A lawyer for Brant Frost IV didn't respond to an email. Conflict with another political group The PAC shared a name with the Georgia Republican Assembly, a group that seeks to push the Republican Party further to the right. The assembly often endorsed and the PAC often contributed to insurgent Republicans who opposed established GOP leaders. But assembly President Nathaniel Darnell said that while the GRA authorized and promoted the PAC, it was a 'totally separate entity.' 'The entire time the PAC was in operation, the Frosts controlled it with zero oversight from the GRA organization,' said Darnell, who said he personally lost an unspecified amount of money invested in First Liberty. The Frosts had a falling-out with the GRA following this year's state Republican convention. They and other supporters of Georgia GOP Chairman Josh McKoon publicly resigned after the GRA expelled Katie Frost, the sister of Brant Frost V. Katie Frost led a nominating committee that recommended delegates vote against a number of GRA-endorsed party officer candidates. Campaign disclosures show the Frosts and associated companies donated a majority of the PAC's money. One focus was supporting Republican challengers who opposed late state House Speaker David Ralston, whom the GRA viewed as a corrupt moderate. But the complaint shows the PAC also didn't disclose spending in school board races in Coweta County, where the Frosts live, and in a county commissioner race in neighboring Meriwether County. Washburn said he believed he was targeted over his support for Ralston and for a bill that would have allowed some immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Georgia universities and colleges. 'I was kind of taken aback by those mailers when they happened and was honestly angered by them because I thought they were very deceitful and misrepresented some things,' he said.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Owner likely won't face charges in Alabama dog attack that killed 7-year-old
CLANTON − Nine dogs have been euthanized as part of the investigation into a fatal dog mauling in Chilton County where a seven-year-old boy died. And the owner likely won't be facing criminal charges, the sheriff said. Deputies went to the County Road 147 area near Calera on July 22 about 6:10 p.m. and found that the child had suffered serious injuries as the result of an attack "... by one or more aggressive dogs," a post on the Chilton County Sheriff's Office Facebook page states. The child was taken for medical treatment but died from their injuries, the post states. The owner of the nine dogs has cooperated with the investigation, surrendered the animals and will likely not face charges, said Sheriff John Shearon. The dogs were on their owner's property when the attack occurred, he said. The boy was riding an all-terrain vehicle at the time, the Shearon said. He declined to release more specific information, citing the ongoing investigation. "When we are through with the investigation, we will present it to the grand jury," Shearon said. "That's standard procedure in a case like this, especially where you have the death of the child." More: Wetumpka man dies after Wednesday crash: State police The following is a list of the dogs that were euthanized: Male, six months old, shepherd mix, 34 pounds. Male, six months old, pit bull terrier mix, 31.5 pounds. Male, six months old, shepherd mix, 26 pounds. Female, one and a half years old, Labrador retriever mix, 25 pounds. Male, two year old, hound mix, 36 pounds. Female, six months old, Labrador retriever mix, 28 pounds. Female, six months old pit bull terrier mix, 24 pounds. Female, three years old, pit bull terrier/Akita mix, 60 pounds. Male, two and a half years old, shepherd mix, 48 pounds. The investigation may never point to which dogs were involved in the attack, Shearon said. "There were a total of 11 dogs on the property," he said. "One was in the house and one was tied up. So we know they couldn't have been part of the attack." Chilton County has a law that bars dogs from running at large. "The dogs were on the owner's property. They had not been deemed vicious in the past," Shearon said. "So they were not running at large." More: Rep. Terri Sewell condemns Congress' actions canceling massive Montgomery grant Contact Montgomery Advertiser reporter Marty Roney at mroney@ To support his work, please subscribe to the Montgomery Advertiser. This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: Dog owner likely won't face charges in Chilton County fatal mauling
