PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Sep 16, 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.10300 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.10300 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.10300 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.10300 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 · 2026-09-04 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 Big Tech Accountability Act would create criminal penalties and civil lawsuits for certain false information about government services and for spreading encouragement of violence. It would replace Section 230(c)(1) with protection against being held liable as the publisher or speaker of someone else’s information in civil suits against an online service provider or user, subject to exceptions for targeting content, encouraging or facilitating misinformation, disinformation, or violence, or intentionally conducting a business that financially benefits from amplifying such material. It would prohibit covered platforms from targeting advertisements to individuals or specific groups “on any basis,” expressly count certain paid selection practices as targeting, and exclude uniform displays responding directly to requests or searches. These changes would affect internet users, publishers, platforms, and advertisers. The bill would require federal recommendations on personal-data collection and sales; it would not itself establish the comprehensive consent requirement described in its policy statement.
Whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly conveys or disseminates fraudulent civic misinformation, for the purpose or with the reasonable expectation of causing other persons to believe and rely or act upon such information, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of section 1041 is liable in a civil action—
Any person who knowingly disseminates on the internet, in interstate commerce and in a manner calculated to reach 500 or more viewers, a communication that solicits, commands, induces, encourages, or otherwise endeavors to persuade another person to kidnap or cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or to engage in conduct constituting a felony offense (as defined by State or Federal law governing the applicable jurisdiction) that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another, whether or not such communications identify a specific person or property as the target of such actions, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 251 is liable in a civil action to any person, including an entity or group of persons, about whom such communication were made, who were injured or harmed as a consequence of such communication, or whose property was injured or harmed as a consequence of such communication, whether or not such person or entity was identified by name in the communication, in an action for damages occasioned by such communication, for injunctive relief, or for other appropriate relief.
Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
In any civil action against a provider or user of an interactive computer service arising from information provided by another information content provider, the interactive computer service shall not be held liable as the publisher or speaker of that information unless the interactive computer service— (i) engages in targeting the dissemination of the content to an individual or specific group of individuals; (ii) acts knowingly, recklessly or negligently in encouraging or facilitating the spread of misinformation, disinformation, or violence; or (iii) intentionally engages in a course of business that receives a financial benefit from amplifying misinformation, disinformation, or violence.
A covered online platform or an agent, affiliate, vendor, or other person acting on behalf of such a platform may not target the dissemination of an advertisement on such platform to an individual or to a specific group of individuals on any basis.
shall be considered to target the dissemination of an advertisement to an individual or to a specific group of individuals if such platform— (A) (i) performs or causes to perform any computational process (including one based on algorithmic models, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques) designed to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the advertisement to a subset of the users of such platform selected based on personal information pertaining to the individuals who make up the subset of users; or (ii) allows another person to instruct a covered online platform to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the advertisement to a subset of the users of such platform, including by providing to such platform a list of individuals, contact information of individuals, or other personal information that can be used to identify individuals; and (B) receives a fee or other payment, directly or indirectly, for disseminating the advertisement or providing the information.
Displaying, highlighting, emphasizing or making more prominent, advertising or other content in direct response to requests made or search terms entered by an individual, such that any individual making such requests or entering such search terms would produce the same display, does not constitute targeting under this subsection.
the Federal Trade Commission is hereby directed to study and make recommendations for specific reforms and legislation restricting the collection, aggregation, or sale of online personal information and prohibiting the collection, aggregation, or sale of any individual’s online personal information without the genuine, informed, and meaningful consent of such individual.
The bill names itself the Big Tech Accountability Act. Its stated purposes are platform accountability, protection against amplification of disinformation and violence, and protection of online privacy. These are declared goals, not demonstrated results.
This Act may be cited as the Big Tech Accountability Act.
The purposes of this Act are to— (1) foster accountability by online platforms and other internet service providers; (2) protect internet users, voters, and the broader community from the dangers of rampant amplification of disinformation and violence; and (3) protect online personal privacy and autonomy against commercial exploitation.
The proposed government-information offense would cover materially false, fraudulent, or misleading information about essential government services or processes. It would also cover materially false, fraudulent, or misleading information falsely presented as coming from, or approved by, a government agency.
The term fraudulent civic misinformation means— (A) materially false, fraudulent, or misleading information pertaining to essential government services or processes, including government services concerning public health and safety, voting and voter registration, elections, the census, civil rights, and education; or (B) data, guidance, or information that is materially false, fraudulent, or misleading and that is falsely attributed to a government agency, or falsely asserted to have been sanctioned or authored by a government agency.
Knowingly spreading that government-related misinformation in interstate or foreign commerce would carry a fine, up to five years in prison, or both, when done with the purpose or reasonable expectation that others would believe and rely or act on it.
Whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly conveys or disseminates fraudulent civic misinformation, for the purpose or with the reasonable expectation of causing other persons to believe and rely or act upon such information, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Publishers and people acting for them could face a fine, up to five years in prison, or both for aiding a violation in interstate or foreign commerce by knowingly distributing the misinformation or using individualized targeting to distribute it.
Any publishing entity, or person acting on behalf of such publishing entity who, in interstate or foreign commerce, aids in the dissemination of fraudulent civic misinformation that violates subsection (a) of this section, by— (1) knowingly disseminating, publishing, or broadcasting fraudulent civic misinformation; or (2) conducting individualized targeting to disseminate, publish, or broadcast fraudulent civic misinformation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The proposed offenses would reach more than large technology companies. The definition of publishing entity includes print publishers, radio and television outlets, online services and platforms, and advertising agencies or media.
The term publishing entity means any print publisher, radio-broadcast licensee, broadcast, cable, or local television station, provider of an interactive computer service (as such term is defined in section 230(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2))), covered online platform (as such term is defined in section 232(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934), or agency or medium for the dissemination of advertising.
In this section, the terms individualized targeting, personal information, and publishing entity shall have the meaning given such terms in section 1041.
For these offenses, individualized targeting would include automated promotion to audiences selected using personal information and allowing others to direct content to selected users. Personal information would include information linked or reasonably linkable to a person or device, browsing-derived information, and de-identified information.
performs or causes to perform any computational process (including one based on algorithmic models, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques) designed to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the content to a subset of the users of such platform selected based on personal information pertaining to the individuals who make up the subset of users
allows another person or entity to instruct a publishing entity to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the content to a subset of the users of such publishing entity, including by providing to such person a list of individuals, contact information of individuals, or other personal information that can be used to identify individuals
The term personal information means any information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a specific individual or a specific device, including an individual’s actual or perceived characteristics or demographics and information that may be derived from such individual’s internet browsing history, and including de-identified information.
In this section, the terms individualized targeting, personal information, and publishing entity shall have the meaning given such terms in section 1041.
Content displayed directly in response to a request or search would fall outside the offenses’ targeting definition if anyone making the same request or search would receive the same display. This exception concerns targeting; it does not expressly exempt the content from the other offense provisions.
does not include when a publishing entity displays, highlights, emphasizes, or makes more prominent, content in direct response to requests made or search terms entered by an individual, such that any individual making such requests or entering such search terms would produce the same display.
In this section, the terms individualized targeting, personal information, and publishing entity shall have the meaning given such terms in section 1041.
For the government-information offenses, the Attorney General could seek civil penalties in federal court after proving the conduct more likely than not. The penalty provision specifies up to $50,000 per violation or the compensation received or offered for the prohibited conduct, whichever amount is greater. The Attorney General could also seek a court order stopping conduct the court finds violates the offense provisions.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of section 1041 and, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, whichever amount is greater.
The court may issue an order prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct if the court finds that the conduct constitutes such an offense.
People could bring civil claims over government misinformation offenses for emergency or investigative response expenses, correction expenses, and specified resulting harms. Those harms include injury or death, property loss, lost voting opportunities or civil rights, denied government services, and medical or legal expenses. Injured people could also seek court orders or other nonmonetary relief.
Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of section 1041 is liable in a civil action— (1) to any person incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to the conduct that violated subsection (a) of section 1041; (2) to any person incurring expenses incident to any efforts required to correct the fraudulent civic misinformation; (3) to any person incurring injury, illness, or loss of life, loss of personal property, loss of an opportunity to vote in an election, loss of civil rights, loss or denial of government services, or expenses, including medical or legal expenses, as a result of the fraudulent civic misinformation; or (4) to any person injured for injunctive or other equitable relief.
A separate proposed offense would punish knowingly spreading an internet communication in interstate commerce in a manner calculated to reach at least 500 viewers when it encourages kidnapping, death, serious bodily injury, or a qualifying felony involving force against people or property. A specific target need not be identified. The penalty would be a fine, up to two years in prison, or both.
Any person who knowingly disseminates on the internet, in interstate commerce and in a manner calculated to reach 500 or more viewers, a communication that solicits, commands, induces, encourages, or otherwise endeavors to persuade another person to kidnap or cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or to engage in conduct constituting a felony offense (as defined by State or Federal law governing the applicable jurisdiction) that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another, whether or not such communications identify a specific person or property as the target of such actions, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
A publisher or someone acting for it could face a fine, up to two years in prison, or both for distributing such encouragement of violence in interstate or foreign commerce, using individualized targeting, and causing at least 10,000 views in the United States through distribution means it wholly or partly owns or controls. The threshold counts views, not necessarily distinct viewers.
Any publishing entity or person acting on behalf of a publishing entity, who, in interstate or foreign commerce— (1) disseminates, publishes, or broadcasts a communication that solicits, commands, induces, encourages, or otherwise endeavors to persuade another person or persons to kidnap or cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or to engage in conduct constituting a felony offense (as defined by State or Federal law governing the applicable jurisdiction) that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another, whether or not such communications identify a specific person or property as the target of such actions; (2) conducts individualized targeting to disseminate, publish, or broadcast such communication; and (3) causes the communication to be viewed, seen, or read 10,000 or more times within the United States by means of dissemination, publication, or broadcast that are controlled or owned, in whole or in part, by the publishing entity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
For the violence offenses, the Attorney General could seek civil penalties after proving the conduct more likely than not. The penalty language specifies up to $50,000 per violation or the compensation received or offered, whichever amount is greater. Courts could also order a person to stop conduct found to constitute an offense.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 251 and, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, whichever amount is greater.
The court may issue an order prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct if the court finds that the conduct constitutes such an offense.
The proposed violence provisions would allow civil claims by people, entities, or groups about whom the communications were made, who suffered resulting harm, or whose property suffered resulting harm, even without being named. Courts could award damages, orders stopping conduct, or other appropriate relief upon proof more likely than not that an offense occurred.
Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 251 is liable in a civil action to any person, including an entity or group of persons, about whom such communication were made, who were injured or harmed as a consequence of such communication, or whose property was injured or harmed as a consequence of such communication, whether or not such person or entity was identified by name in the communication, in an action for damages occasioned by such communication, for injunctive relief, or for other appropriate relief. The court may grant any such relief upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has engaged in conduct constituting an offense under section 251.
Both proposed civil-enforcement sections would preserve other criminal, civil, common-law, and administrative remedies available to the government or other people.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
The bill would replace Section 230(c)(1) with a provision addressing civil actions against a provider or user of an interactive computer service arising from information supplied by another content provider. In those actions, the proposed text would protect the service from being held liable as the publisher or speaker of that information, subject to three exceptions: targeted distribution of content; knowing, reckless, or negligent encouragement or facilitation of misinformation, disinformation, or violence; or intentionally conducting a business that financially benefits from amplifying such material. For this paragraph, the service includes agents, affiliates, vendors, and others acting on its behalf. The targeting exception is not expressly limited to harmful content. The exceptions remove the stated protection; they do not themselves establish liability in a particular lawsuit. The existing provision is not reproduced, so this describes the proposed replacement rather than a complete comparison with current law.
Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
In any civil action against a provider or user of an interactive computer service arising from information provided by another information content provider, the interactive computer service shall not be held liable as the publisher or speaker of that information unless the interactive computer service— (i) engages in targeting the dissemination of the content to an individual or specific group of individuals; (ii) acts knowingly, recklessly or negligently in encouraging or facilitating the spread of misinformation, disinformation, or violence; or (iii) intentionally engages in a course of business that receives a financial benefit from amplifying misinformation, disinformation, or violence.
In this paragraph, the term interactive computer service includes an agent, affiliate, vendor, or other person acting on behalf of the interactive computer service.
For the Section 230 change, targeting would include automated content selection using personal information and allowing others to direct content to selected users. Identical displays responding to identical requests or searches would be excluded. The personal-information definition would include device-linked and de-identified information.
perform or cause to perform any computational process (including one based on algorithmic models, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques) designed to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the content to a subset of the users of such platform selected based on personal information pertaining to the individuals who make up the subset of users
allow another person to instruct an interactive computer service to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the content to a subset of the users of such interactive computer service
does not include displaying, highlighting, emphasizing, or making more prominent, content in direct response to requests made or search terms entered by an individual, such that any individual making such requests or entering such search terms would produce the same display
The term personal information means any information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a specific individual or a specific device, including an individual’s actual or perceived characteristics or demographics and information that may be derived from such individual’s internet browsing history, and including de-identified information.
The advertising prohibition would apply broadly to websites, applications, social networks, search engines, and advertising networks, as well as people acting for those platforms. It would prohibit targeting advertisements to individuals or specific groups “on any basis,” subject to the section’s express exclusion for uniform displays responding directly to requests or searches.
A covered online platform or an agent, affiliate, vendor, or other person acting on behalf of such a platform may not target the dissemination of an advertisement on such platform to an individual or to a specific group of individuals on any basis.
The term covered online platform means any website, web application, mobile application, smart device application, digital application (including a social network, or search engine), or advertising network (including a network disseminating advertisements on another website, web application, mobile application, smart device application, or digital application).
Displaying, highlighting, emphasizing or making more prominent, advertising or other content in direct response to requests made or search terms entered by an individual, such that any individual making such requests or entering such search terms would produce the same display, does not constitute targeting under this subsection.
The advertising section expressly specifies conduct that counts as targeting: selecting an audience through computational processing based on personal information, or allowing another person to direct advertisements to selected users, combined with receiving direct or indirect payment for distributing the advertisement or providing the information. It does not expressly make this selection-plus-payment rule the exclusive definition of prohibited targeting. Because the preceding prohibition applies “on any basis,” the text does not clearly resolve its full reach beyond the specified conduct; payment should not be treated as a requirement for every prohibited instance. Ads or other content responding directly to requests or searches would be excluded when the same request or search produces the same display for anyone.
A covered online platform or an agent, affiliate, vendor, or other person acting on behalf of such a platform may not target the dissemination of an advertisement on such platform to an individual or to a specific group of individuals on any basis.
shall be considered to target the dissemination of an advertisement to an individual or to a specific group of individuals if such platform— (A) (i) performs or causes to perform any computational process (including one based on algorithmic models, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques) designed to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the advertisement to a subset of the users of such platform selected based on personal information pertaining to the individuals who make up the subset of users; or (ii) allows another person to instruct a covered online platform to transmit or display, highlight, emphasize, or make more prominent, the advertisement to a subset of the users of such platform, including by providing to such platform a list of individuals, contact information of individuals, or other personal information that can be used to identify individuals; and (B) receives a fee or other payment, directly or indirectly, for disseminating the advertisement or providing the information.
Displaying, highlighting, emphasizing or making more prominent, advertising or other content in direct response to requests made or search terms entered by an individual, such that any individual making such requests or entering such search terms would produce the same display, does not constitute targeting under this subsection.
People alleging an advertising violation could sue in a state or federal court with authority to hear the case. A winning plaintiff could receive $100–$1,000 per negligent violation or $500–$5,000 per reckless, willful, or intentional violation, plus reasonable legal fees, litigation costs, and other appropriate relief. The text declares a violation to be a concrete, individualized injury.
Any person alleging a violation of this section by a covered online platform may bring a civil action in any State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction.
In a civil action brought under this paragraph in which the plaintiff prevails, the court may award— (i) an amount not less than $100 and not greater than $1,000 per violation against any person who negligently violates a provision of this section; (ii) an amount not less than $500 and not greater than $5,000 per violation against any person who recklessly, willfully, or intentionally violates a provision of this section; (iii) reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief, including equitable or declaratory relief, that the court determines appropriate.
A violation of this section constitutes a concrete and particularized injury in fact to an individual.
For disputes under the advertising section, the bill would invalidate agreements made before a dispute that require arbitration or waive participation in joint, class, or collective proceedings. A court, rather than an arbitrator, would decide whether and how this provision applies. The definition of dispute refers to an individual and a “covered organization,” a term not defined in the supplied text, leaving uncertainty about its application.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a dispute arising under this section.
Any determination as to whether or how this section applies to any dispute shall be made by a court, rather than an arbitrator, without regard to whether such agreement purports to delegate such determination to an arbitrator.
The term pre-dispute arbitration agreement means any agreement to arbitrate a dispute that has not arisen at the time of making the agreement.
The term pre-dispute joint-action waiver means an agreement, whether or not part of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, administration, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of making the agreement.
The term dispute means any claim related to an alleged violation of this section and between an individual and a covered organization.
The Attorney General could also enforce the advertising restrictions in federal court. Available relief would include a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation or the compensation received or offered for the conduct, whichever amount is greater, and court orders stopping violations. Other legally available remedies would remain available.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct in violation of this section. In any such action the district court may award appropriate relief in including a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, whichever amount is greater. The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
The court may issue an order prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct if the court finds that the conduct constitutes such a violation.
The proposed targeted-advertising section would take effect 90 days after enactment. This is a conditional deadline, not a fixed calendar date.
This section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Big Tech Accountability Act.
The personal-data section declares that collecting, combining, and selling information derived from internet activity threatens privacy and autonomy. It states a policy of requiring genuine, informed, meaningful consent. These are proposed congressional findings and policy statements; the operative requirement is a federal study and recommendations.
The Congress finds that the widespread practice of websites, internet service companies, and data brokers, among others, collecting, aggregating and selling personal information of individuals derived from their internet activity (online personal information) poses a grave threat to personal privacy and autonomy.
The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy to protect personal privacy and autonomy by restricting the exploitive collection, aggregation, and sale of online personal information and to prohibit the collection, aggregation and sale of any individual’s online personal information without the genuine, informed and meaningful consent of such individual.
the Federal Trade Commission is hereby directed to study and make recommendations for specific reforms and legislation
The Federal Trade Commission would have to recommend reforms restricting collection, combination, or sale of online personal information and prohibiting those activities without genuine, informed, meaningful consent. Its recommendations must reject blanket consent required to access internet information or services as meaningful consent. A report to Congress would be due within 120 days after enactment.
the Federal Trade Commission is hereby directed to study and make recommendations for specific reforms and legislation restricting the collection, aggregation, or sale of online personal information and prohibiting the collection, aggregation, or sale of any individual’s online personal information without the genuine, informed, and meaningful consent of such individual. Among other provisions, the Federal Trade Commission shall include in its recommendations, provisions establishing that blanket consent obtained as a condition to accessing information or services on the internet shall not be considered meaningful consent.
The Federal Trade Commission shall submit a report to Congress containing the recommendations required by this section within 120 days of the date of enactment of the Big Tech Accountability Act.
Section 6 would update the federal criminal code’s tables of contents to list the new violence and government-misinformation provisions.
The table of contents for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 250 the following new items: 251. Criminal liability for amplifying encouragement of violence. 252. Civil penalties, injunction and damages for violations of section 251.
The table of contents for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1040 the following new items: 1041. False information about essential government services or processes. 1042. Civil penalties, injunction, and damages for violations of section 1041.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 16, 2026, records House introduction on September 4, 2026, and referral that day to the Judiciary Committee and additionally to the Energy and Commerce Committee for provisions within each committee’s jurisdiction.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-16T16:57:30Z.
2026-09-04: Introduced in House
2026-09-04: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-04. 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 rider was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of 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 earmark was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This text-based conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or the absence of earmarks 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 preferential benefit was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; generally applicable remedies and exceptions alone were not treated as preferential benefits.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI