PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10110 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10110 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10110 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10110 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Housing Price Transparency Act would require anyone using an algorithm to recommend or set rental prices to clearly disclose its use in setting monthly rates. It would give the Federal Trade Commission enforcement responsibility, allow states to seek relief for residents, and let injured people sue. The central requirement is disclosure; the supplied text does not prohibit using algorithms to set rent.
This Act may be cited as the Housing Price Transparency Act.
A person that uses an algorithm to recommend or set prices for rental accommodation shall clearly disclose that an algorithm was used to set monthly rates.
The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce subsection (a) and any regulation promulgated under such subsection
the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate State court
A person injured by an act or practice in violation of subsection (a) or a regulation promulgated under such subsection may bring in an appropriate district court of the United States
The bill defines a “pricing algorithm” as a computational process that uses data to recommend or set a price or commercial term, including processes derived from machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques.
The term pricing algorithm means any computational process, including a computational process derived from machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques, that processes data to recommend or set a price or commercial term.
Violating the disclosure requirement or regulations issued under it would be treated as violating a Federal Trade Commission rule on unfair or deceptive practices. The Commission would enforce the requirement using the applicable authority of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Violators would face that Act’s penalties and retain its protections.
A violation of subsection (a) or a regulation promulgated under such subsection shall be treated as a violation of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce subsection (a) and any regulation promulgated under such subsection in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. Any person who violates such subsection or a regulation promulgated under such subsection shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
A state could sue in an appropriate state court on behalf of its residents when its attorney general, official, or agency has reason to believe a violation has harmed or threatens residents’ interests. The state could ask the court to stop the conduct, require compliance, award compensation, or grant other appropriate relief.
In any case in which the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency of a State, has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of such State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by an act or practice in violation of subsection (a) or a regulation promulgated under such subsection, the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate State court to— (A) enjoin such act or practice; (B) enforce compliance with such subsection or such regulation; (C) obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of residents of the State; or (D) obtain such other legal and equitable relief as the court may consider to be appropriate.
Before filing such a lawsuit, the state would have to send the Federal Trade Commission written notice and a copy of the complaint. If advance notice is not feasible, the state would have to provide both immediately upon filing.
Before filing an action under this subsection, the attorney general, official, or agency of the State involved shall provide to the Federal Trade Commission a written notice of such action and a copy of the complaint for such action. If the attorney general, official, or agency determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice described in this paragraph before the filing of the action, the attorney general, official, or agency shall provide written notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to the Federal Trade Commission immediately upon the filing of the action.
After receiving notice, the Federal Trade Commission would have the right to join the state lawsuit, be heard on all matters after joining, and file petitions for appeal.
On receiving notice under paragraph (2) of an action under this subsection, the Federal Trade Commission shall have the right— (i) to intervene in the action; (ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising therein; and (iii) to file petitions for appeal.
While a civil enforcement lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission or the U.S. Attorney General is pending, a state could not bring an action under this provision against a defendant named in that federal complaint for a violation alleged in it.
If the Federal Trade Commission or the Attorney General of the United States has instituted a civil action for violation of subsection (a) or a regulation promulgated under such subsection (referred to in this subparagraph as the Federal action), no State attorney general, official, or agency may bring an action under this subsection during the pendency of the Federal action against any defendant named in the complaint in the Federal action for any violation of such subsection or regulation alleged in such complaint.
For these state lawsuits, the bill would preserve state officials’ existing powers under state law to investigate, administer oaths, and compel witnesses or evidence.
For purposes of bringing a civil action under this subsection, nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent an attorney general, official, or agency of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general, official, or agency by the laws of such State to conduct investigations, administer oaths and affirmations, or compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence.
A person injured by a violation could sue in an appropriate federal district court to stop it, obtain damages, or both. The damages provision would allow recovery for actual monetary loss or at least $10,000 for each violation, whichever is greater.
A person injured by an act or practice in violation of subsection (a) or a regulation promulgated under such subsection may bring in an appropriate district court of the United States— (A) an action to enjoin the violation; (B) an action to recover damages for actual monetary loss from the violation, or to receive not less than $10,000 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater; or (C) both such actions.
A plaintiff who wins such a private lawsuit would be entitled to court-awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The lawsuit would have to begin within two years after the person first discovered the violation or had a reasonable opportunity to discover it. This remedy would be available in addition to other remedies.
The court shall award to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this subsection the costs of such action and reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.
An action may be commenced under this subsection not later than 2 years after the date on which the person first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
The remedy provided by this subsection shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the person.
The supplied action snapshot, updated August 20, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on August 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-20T13:35:43Z. 2026-08-17: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-08-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Generally available enforcement remedies do not alone constitute targeted benefits. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 20, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI