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.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 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.10540 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.10540 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.10540 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.10540 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 · 2026-09-24 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 21st Century FTC Act would remove several existing provisions for making rules about unfair or deceptive business practices. It would revise court-review language to address whether the Federal Trade Commission's action is supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. It would also add violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act itself to an existing civil-penalty provision. These changes concern the Commission and those subject to its authority, but the underlying statutory text is not supplied, limiting conclusions about the procedures removed and the conditions for penalties.
This Act may be cited as the 21st Century FTC Act.
2. Rulemaking respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended—
(A) in subsection (b)— (i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking , and shall also and all that follows and inserting a period; and (iii) by striking (1) When prescribing and inserting When prescribing; (B) by striking subsection (c);
if the court finds that the Commission's action is not supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record (as defined in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection) taken as a whole.
Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A)) is amended— (1) by inserting this Act or after violates; and (2) by inserting a violation of this Act or is before prohibited.
Section 2 would delete several parts of the existing rulemaking process: section 18(b)(2) and (3), all of section 18(c), and portions of the statement requirements in section 18(d)(1). It would also truncate section 18(b)(1) at the phrase beginning with “, and shall also” and remove its paragraph number. The supplied bill gives deletion instructions rather than the deleted language, so it does not fully explain which procedures would disappear.
(A) in subsection (b)— (i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking , and shall also and all that follows and inserting a period; and (iii) by striking (1) When prescribing and inserting When prescribing; (B) by striking subsection (c);
(C) in subsection (d)— (i) in paragraph (1)— (I) by striking (A) a statement and all that follows through (B) a statement and inserting a statement; and (II) by striking ; and (C) a statement and all that follows and inserting a period;
The bill would revise the language governing court review to refer to whether the Commission's action is unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. It would define evidence for this provision as any matter in that record. The surrounding existing law, including the referenced definition of the rulemaking record, is not supplied, so the full court-review framework cannot be described from this text alone.
in paragraph (3), by striking , or if and all that follows and inserting the following: , or if the court finds that the Commission's action is not supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record (as defined in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection) taken as a whole. The term evidence, as used in this paragraph, means any matter in the rulemaking record.
Other changes to section 18 would remove a reference to a required transcript, delete paragraph (e)(2), and delete the first and third sentences of paragraph (e)(5)(C). The bill would also update cross-references and paragraph numbers. The contents of the deleted paragraph and sentences are not reproduced.
in paragraph (2)(A), by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting subsection (b);
in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the transcript required by subsection (c)(5),;
(iii) in paragraph (5)(C), by striking the first and third sentences; (iv) by striking paragraph (2); and (v) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
The bill would remove a reference to section 18 from section 22(a)(1). It would also delete exception language from section 22(c)(1) and the opening exception reference in section 22(c)(2). Because the underlying provisions are not reproduced, the source does not establish the full practical effect of removing those exceptions.
(2) in section 22— (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking or section 18; and (B) in subsection (c)— (i) in paragraph (1), by striking , except and all that follows and inserting a period; and (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking Except as specified in paragraph (1), no and inserting No.
Section 3 would expand the wording of an existing civil-penalty provision by adding violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act itself. The amendment does not reproduce the existing penalty amounts, conditions, or enforcement procedures, so it does not establish that every violation would automatically incur a penalty.
3. Civil penalties for violations of Federal Trade Commission Act respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A)) is amended— (1) by inserting this Act or after violates; and (2) by inserting a violation of this Act or is before prohibited.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 24, 2026. This snapshot does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T21:14:46Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 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.
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 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; formal earmark disclosures are not supplied.
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 after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, and does not resolve the effects of underlying statutory language that was not supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI