Published October 03, 2026
The Statute and Its Status
On June 22, 2026, the Governor of Arizona signed HB 2995, officially titled the “Alec and Lydia Act.” Because the bill carries an emergency clause, it became operative immediately upon signing. The law is named for two Arizona children who were killed by their father in 2024, a case that brought renewed attention to how family courts handle domestic violence, abuse concerns, and parental access.
As of its effective date, the Alec and Lydia Act changes how domestic violence is evaluated in Arizona custody-related cases. For the first time in Arizona, a pattern of behavior known as “coercive control” is explicitly included in the definition of domestic violence for purposes of legal decision-making and parenting time cases. What makes the statute analytically significant is its direct engagement with the role of surveillance and tracking technology in coercive control, a provision that places Arizona among a small but growing number of jurisdictions treating digital abuse as a defined statutory category.
Defining Coercive Control and Its Technological Dimension
The concept of coercive control has its origins in the work of the late sociologist Evan Stark. Through the framework of coercive control, Stark situated domestic violence as a “liberty crime” in which abusers seek to entrap victims, undermine their social support, subvert their autonomy, and deprive them of equality. Stark developed the concept of coercive control, a type of abuse he likened to kidnapping or slavery when compared to more commonly occurring abuse.
Under HB 2995 as chaptered, Arizona now defines “coercive control” as “a pattern of violent, threatening, coercive or emotionally abusive conduct by one parent against the other, without consent or justification.” This conduct does not need to involve physical violence. The statute lists fifteen categories of behavior that can constitute coercive control, and several involve no physical contact at all.
Among these fifteen enumerated behaviors, one provision addresses technology directly. Subsection (o) identifies “using surveillance or tracking technology to facilitate or aggravate any of the behaviors listed in this paragraph.” Two other provisions complement this technology-specific clause: one addresses “monitoring, surveilling, regulating or controlling a person’s finances, economic resources or access to services, or those of the person’s child or relative,” and another covers “monitoring, surveilling, regulating or controlling a person’s activities, communications or movements, including through the use of technology, or those of the person’s child or relative.”
This layered approach treats technology not as a standalone offense but as a medium through which an existing pattern of control may be executed or intensified, a framing that reflects contemporary scholarship on the subject.
Technology-Facilitated Coercive Control in the Research Literature
Researchers have given this category of abuse increasing attention. Technology-facilitated coercive control (TFCC) refers to violence and abuse by current or former intimate partners, facilitated by digital media (Dragiewicz et al., 2018). Examples of TFCC include using social media to harass, using GPS data to stalk, recording content covertly, making threats via SMS, monitoring emails, accessing online accounts without permission, and impersonating a partner online.
A 2021 study published in Geoforum by scholars drawing on qualitative interviews in Seattle found that digital technologies enable abusers to more efficiently and effectively coercively control survivors anywhere and at any time, including after the relationship has ended. By highlighting how digital technologies have become central tools for abusers to threaten, stalk, harass, and surveil their partners, researchers have situated TFCC as a continuation of harm rather than a new or distinct form of abuse, focusing on surveillance, multimodal harassment, and the distribution of intimate images.
O’Brien and Maras, writing in the International Review of Law, Computers and Technology (2024), note that efforts to redress the harms of technology-facilitated gender-based violence must be alert to the risks of reactive legislation, discrimination, net-widening and overcriminalisation, victim blaming, systems abuse, and, in some cases, a further loss of autonomy for victim-survivors. Their caution is notable for jurisdictions, like Arizona, that are writing technology-specific provisions into family law.
Arizona in the Context of Other State Approaches
Arizona HB 2995 is part of a broader legislative trend. California passed SB 1141, which folded coercive control into the state’s definition of domestic abuse for family court purposes. Effective January 1, 2021, it let survivors seeking a restraining order describe a pattern of control such as isolation, financial abuse, and threats, without having to prove physical violence. Hawaii became the first U.S. state to criminalize coercive control directly, treating it as a petty misdemeanor. Connecticut passed “Jennifer’s Law,” named for Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Magnano, two women killed by coercively controlling partners.
However, Arizona’s approach is distinct in important respects. For the first time in Arizona, a defined pattern of non-criminal conduct qualifies as domestic violence in legal decision-making and parenting time cases. Unlike Hawaii’s criminal framework, most coercive control laws passed in the U.S. concern civil matters such as child custody and protective orders and do not expand prosecution under criminal charges. Arizona follows this civil/family law model but adds granularity around tracking technology coercive control by specifying surveillance and tracking devices as an aggravating mechanism within the statutory list.
The statute also restructures burdens of proof. A domestic violence claim, including one based on coercive control, is established by a preponderance; corroboration from exhibits or another witness is not required. Once the court finds domestic violence, a mandatory rebuttable presumption attaches. To overcome it, the parent who committed domestic violence needs clear and convincing evidence for sole or joint legal decision-making or for any unsupervised parenting time.
Why This Matters
The inclusion of Arizona HB 2995 surveillance provisions in the coercive control definition is not merely symbolic. Technology-facilitated coercive control involves the use of digital tools, including smartphones, social media, GPS devices, smart home systems, and online platforms, to monitor, control, harass, threaten, or manipulate partners and family members. Technology-facilitated coercive control includes hacking accounts, impersonation, persistent digital harassment, GPS tracking, spyware, and smart-home manipulation. These tactics allow abusers to overcome geographic boundaries and exert control continuously, even after separation.
By naming surveillance and tracking technology in the statute, Arizona gives family courts explicit statutory language to evaluate digital abuse as part of a pattern, rather than treating each technological intrusion as an isolated incident. The law expands how courts evaluate domestic violence, including patterns of coercive control, not just isolated incidents of physical harm. This statutory framing aligns with the scholarly consensus, articulated by Stark and others, that the harm of coercive control lies in its cumulative, pattern-based character rather than in any single act.
Enduring Questions
Several analytical questions persist as technology coercive control law continues to develop across jurisdictions. Courts will need to determine what evidence threshold establishes that surveillance or tracking technology was used “to facilitate or aggravate” a pattern of coercive control, particularly when consumer technologies such as shared location services and smart-home devices have both legitimate and abusive applications. Scholars have also cautioned that piecemeal legislative reform may divert attention from broader structural reforms needed to ensure equal access to justice for victim-survivors of all forms of gender-based violence.
Readers seeking further information may consult the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) or the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence for state-specific resources. The American Bar Association’s Family Law Section publishes ongoing analysis of coercive control legislation across U.S. jurisdictions. These resources provide current, credible guidance that this educational content is not designed to replace.
Sources
- HB 2995, Chapter 263, Arizona Legislature (signed June 22, 2026)
- HB 2995 bill history, LegiScan
- O’Brien and Maras, “Technology-facilitated coercive control: response, redress, risk, and reform,” International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, Vol. 38, 2024
- Redefining Domestic Abuse: Coercive Control, American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly, December 2025
- Freed et al., “New tools, old abuse: Technology-Enabled Coercive Control (TECC),” Geoforum, 2021
- HB 2995 Senate Fact Sheet, Arizona Legislature
- Coercive Control Laws in the US, DomesticShelters.org, 2026
Disclaimer
Coercive control law moves fast. Jurisdictions are actively criminalizing it, amending definitions, and changing the scope of litigation. This article is current as of its date of publication and may not reflect subsequent changes. It is provided for general educational purposes and is not legal advice.