PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2025
Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act or the QUIET Act
This bill establishes a disclosure requirement for robocalls that use artificial intelligence (AI) to emulate a human being and increases forfeiture and fine amounts for certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). (The TCPA prohibits certain telemarketing calls made without the recipient’s consent and using specified automated technologies.)
Specifically, any robocall that uses AI to emulate a human being must include a disclosure at the beginning of the message indicating that AI is being used. Under the bill, robocalls are defined as calls made or text messages sent (1) using automatic dialing technology, or (2) using an artificially generated message or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Calls or texts that are made or sent using equipment that requires substantial human intervention are excluded.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Further, the bill doubles the maximum forfeiture penalty and criminal fine that may be imposed for certain violations of the TCPA involving the use of AI to impersonate an individual or entity with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This provision applies to violations that occur after the bill’s enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Sorensen, Eric [D-IL-17] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H519)
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.
Source last updated: Oct 6, 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.1027 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.1027 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.1027 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.1027 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 · 2025-02-05 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 QUIET Act would require people making covered automated calls or sending covered messages to disclose at the start when artificial intelligence is being used to imitate a human. It would also double maximum monetary penalties and criminal fines for certain violations involving AI impersonation intended to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value. These are proposed changes, not evidence of enacted requirements.
This Act may be cited as the Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act or the QUIET Act.
If a person making a robocall uses artificial intelligence to emulate a human being, such person shall disclose at the beginning of the call or text message the fact that artificial intelligence is being used.
In the case of a violation of this section with respect to which the party making the call or sending the text message uses artificial intelligence to impersonate an individual or entity with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value—
the maximum amount of the forfeiture penalty
shall be twice the maximum amount
the maximum amount of the criminal fine
Section 2 would add a mandatory disclosure to the Communications Act: a person using AI to imitate a human in a covered robocall would have to disclose that AI is being used at the beginning of the call or text message. This disclosure requirement does not depend on an intent to deceive or harm.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
If a person making a robocall uses artificial intelligence to emulate a human being, such person shall disclose at the beginning of the call or text message the fact that artificial intelligence is being used.
For the disclosure rule, a robocall would include calls or texts made using equipment that contacts stored numbers or randomly or sequentially generated numbers. It would also include calls or texts using an artificial or prerecorded voice or an artificially generated message.
The term robocall means a call made or text message sent— (I) using equipment, whether hardware, software, or a combination thereof and including an automatic telephone dialing system, that makes a call or sends a text message to— (aa) stored telephone numbers; or (bb) telephone numbers produced using a random or sequential number generator; or (II) using an artificial or prerecorded voice or an artificially generated message.
The equipment-based part of that definition would exclude calls or texts requiring substantial human intervention to make or send. This exclusion is expressly limited to that part of the definition; it does not exclude communications independently covered because they use an artificial or prerecorded voice or an artificially generated message.
For purposes of clause (i)(I), the term robocall does not include a call made or text message sent using equipment that requires substantial human intervention to make or send the call or text message.
(II) using an artificial or prerecorded voice or an artificially generated message.
For the disclosure rule, text messages could contain text, images, sounds, or other information. Coverage would include messages transmitted to or from devices identified by a 10-digit phone number, N11 service code, short code, or email address, as well as application-to-person messaging. It expressly includes short message service (SMS), multimedia message service (MMS), and rich communication service (RCS) messages, but excludes real-time, two-way voice or video communication.
The term text message means a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit telephone number, N11 service code, short code telephone number, or email address, or that is transmitted through application-to-person messaging, and includes— (I) a short message service (commonly referred to as SMS) message; (II) a multimedia message service (commonly referred to as MMS) message; and (III) a rich communication service (commonly referred to as RCS) message.
The term text message does not include a real-time, two-way voice or video communication.
Section 3 would double the maximum monetary forfeiture penalty available under the specified Communications Act provisions when a section 227 violation involves AI impersonation of a person or organization with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value. It would increase the permitted maximum, without requiring that maximum penalty in every case.
In the case of a violation of this section with respect to which the party making the call or sending the text message uses artificial intelligence to impersonate an individual or entity with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value—
the maximum amount of the forfeiture penalty that may be imposed under subsection (b)(4) or (e)(5)(A) of this section or subsection (b) of section 503 (as the case may be) shall be twice the maximum amount that may be imposed for such violation under such subsection without regard to this subsection;
For section 227 violations involving the same AI impersonation and wrongful intent, Section 3 would also double the maximum criminal fine available under section 227(e)(5)(B) or section 501, whichever applies.
In the case of a violation of this section with respect to which the party making the call or sending the text message uses artificial intelligence to impersonate an individual or entity with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value—
the maximum amount of the criminal fine that may be imposed under subsection (e)(5)(B) of this section or section 501 (as the case may be) shall be twice the maximum amount that may be imposed for such violation under such subsection or section without regard to this subsection.
The enhanced penalties would apply to violations occurring after the bill's enactment date, if enacted.
The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 6, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 5, 2025, followed by sponsor introductory remarks on February 6, 2025. These entries do not establish the bill's subsequent progress or enactment status.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-06T08:05:55Z. 2025-02-06: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H519) 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-05. 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 is limited to that version and 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 that version; it does not establish formal earmark status or absence in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI