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. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6] · R–IN
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: Oct 15, 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.10705 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.10705 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.10705 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.10705 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 · 2026-10-01 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 Stop SIM Box Scams Act would ban making, selling, possessing, using, and helping others operate certain tools that automatically manage multiple mobile-service credentials to disguise communications or evade lawful carrier controls. The definition would cover software and cloud services as well as physical equipment. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would implement the restrictions and clarify permitted uses. The proposal includes exceptions for government use, specified testing, and other uses the FCC allows.
This Act may be cited as the Stop SIM Box Scams Act.
Manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, lease, advertise, possess, use, or distribute any SIM box.
Assist, including by knowingly allowing on the property of such individual or entity, an activity specified in paragraph (1) or (2) that is carried out by another individual or entity.
The term SIM box means any device, equipment, software, system, or service (including any virtualized, remote, or cloud-based system, platform, or service) that— (i) enables, or is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to enable, the automated pooling, rotation, multiplexing, or concurrent use of 2 or more SIMs, International Mobile Subscriber Identities, or equivalent credentials to originate, route, forward, or terminate communications with respect to a mobile service; and (ii) is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to— (I) obscure or misrepresent call or data origin; (II) defeat caller identity authentication or traceback; or (III) bypass or evade lawful controls of a provider of mobile service, including interconnection agreements, access charge arrangements, and numbering policies.
promulgate regulations with respect to the implementation of this section, including regulations to establish procedures for clarifying and refining the definition of the term SIM box
(ii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely by a Federal, State, Tribal, or local government for an official purpose. (iii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely within a laboratory or another testing facility recognized by the Commission for conformance, security, or interoperability testing, if such device, equipment, software, system, or service is not offered for sale or public use. (iv) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used for purposes of the internal testing of equipment or systems by a provider of mobile service authorized or licensed by the Commission. (v) Any other device, equipment, software, system, or service the Commission determines appropriate.
A SIM would mean a physical or non-physical subscriber identity module, or a comparable credential or profile used to authenticate a device or user for mobile service. The proposal uses the existing Communications Act definition of mobile service, which is not reproduced in the bundle.
(1) Mobile service The term mobile service has the meaning given such term in section 3 of this Act. (2) SIM The term SIM means a physical subscriber identity module, a non-physical subscriber identity module, or any comparable credential or profile used to authenticate a device or user with respect to a mobile service.
A tool would count as a SIM box only if it meets both parts of the definition: it enables, or is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to enable, automated management or simultaneous use of at least two mobile credentials; and it is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to disguise communication origins, defeat caller authentication or tracing, or evade lawful carrier controls. Actual fraudulent use would not be an express prerequisite under this definition. The stated exclusions would also apply.
(i) enables, or is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to enable, the automated pooling, rotation, multiplexing, or concurrent use of 2 or more SIMs, International Mobile Subscriber Identities, or equivalent credentials to originate, route, forward, or terminate communications with respect to a mobile service; and (ii) is designed, advertised, or reasonably expected to— (I) obscure or misrepresent call or data origin; (II) defeat caller identity authentication or traceback; or (III) bypass or evade lawful controls of a provider of mobile service, including interconnection agreements, access charge arrangements, and numbering policies.
(B) Exclusions The term SIM box does not include the following:
For conduct in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, the proposal would prohibit individuals and entities from manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, leasing, advertising, possessing, using, or distributing a SIM box. It would also prohibit modifying equipment, software, systems, or services to function wholly or partly as a SIM box, and assisting someone else's prohibited conduct, including knowingly allowing it on one's property.
No individual or entity may, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, carry out any of the following activities: (1) Manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, lease, advertise, possess, use, or distribute any SIM box. (2) Reprogram, adapt, configure, or otherwise modify any device, equipment, software, system, or service to enable such device, equipment, software, system, or service to function, in whole or in part, as a SIM box. (3) Assist, including by knowingly allowing on the property of such individual or entity, an activity specified in paragraph (1) or (2) that is carried out by another individual or entity.
The prohibitions would apply to activities occurring on or after the date 180 days following enactment of the new section. This is a proposed enactment-based deadline, not a fixed calendar date.
Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to activities carried out on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section.
Within 180 days after enactment, the FCC would have to issue implementation rules, including procedures to refine the definition so it covers functionally equivalent tools and excludes tools used for purposes the FCC considers permissible.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Commission shall— (1) promulgate regulations with respect to the implementation of this section, including regulations to establish procedures for clarifying and refining the definition of the term SIM box to ensure that such term— (A) includes all items that are functionally equivalent to a SIM box; and (B) excludes any device, equipment, software, system, or service used for a permissible purpose, as determined by the Commission;
By that same 180-day deadline, the FCC would have to publish and then maintain lists of prohibited tools and permitted tools and uses. These lists would not be exhaustive. It would also establish procedures, as appropriate, for manufacturers and distributors to demonstrate eligibility for an exclusion and ensure accurate advertising.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Commission shall—
(2) publish, and thereafter maintain— (A) a non-exhaustive list of devices, equipment, software, systems, and services prohibited under subsection (a); and (B) a non-exhaustive list of devices, equipment, software, systems, services, and uses permissible pursuant to an exclusion described in subsection (h)(3)(B); and (3) establish procedures, as appropriate, for manufacturers and distributors to— (A) demonstrate that any device, equipment, software, system, or service, that would otherwise be a SIM box, is not a SIM box by reason of such device, equipment, software, system, or service satisfying an exclusion described in subsection (h)(3)(B); and (B) ensure accurate advertising.
The definition would exclude tools the FCC authorizes or licenses for a purpose permitted under the Communications Act, tools used solely by federal, state, Tribal, or local governments for official purposes, and any other tools the FCC determines appropriate to exclude.
(B) Exclusions The term SIM box does not include the following: (i) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service authorized or licensed by the Commission for a purpose permissible under this Act. (ii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely by a Federal, State, Tribal, or local government for an official purpose.
(v) Any other device, equipment, software, system, or service the Commission determines appropriate.
Testing exclusions would cover tools used solely within an FCC-recognized laboratory or testing facility to test compliance, security, or whether systems work together, provided the tools are not offered for sale or public use. A separate exclusion would cover internal equipment or system testing by FCC-authorized or licensed mobile-service providers.
(iii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely within a laboratory or another testing facility recognized by the Commission for conformance, security, or interoperability testing, if such device, equipment, software, system, or service is not offered for sale or public use. (iv) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used for purposes of the internal testing of equipment or systems by a provider of mobile service authorized or licensed by the Commission.
The FCC would have to coordinate with Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, the Attorney General, and other relevant federal agencies to prevent SIM-box imports and distribution. It would also coordinate enforcement, information sharing, and training with the Federal Trade Commission, Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and state attorneys general.
the Commission shall coordinate with— (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Attorney General, and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies to prevent the importation and distribution of SIM boxes; and (2) the Federal Trade Commission, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general with respect to enforcement, information sharing, and training.
For enforcement purposes, each prohibited SIM box, each item unlawfully modified, and each day of a continuing violation could be treated as a separate violation. The text makes this treatment discretionary.
each SIM box manufactured, imported, sold, offered for sale, leased, advertised, possessed, used, or distributed in violation of this section, each item reprogrammed, adapted, configured, or otherwise modified in violation of this section, and each day of a continuing violation of this section, may be treated as a separate violation of this section.
After determining that a violation is occurring, the FCC could issue a temporary order requiring it to stop immediately. The order could last up to 180 days; an extension would require notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
The Commission may, after determining that an individual or entity is carrying out an activity in violation of this section, issue a temporary cease-and-desist order requiring such individual or entity to immediately stop such activity and such order may remain in effect for up to 180 days (unless extended by the Commission after the provision of notice and an opportunity for a hearing).
An injured mobile-service provider could sue in an appropriate federal district court to stop a violation, recover damages, or both. This would cover violations of the new section or its regulations. The court could award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing party.
A provider of mobile service injured by an activity in violation of this section, or a regulation promulgated under this section, may bring in an appropriate district court of the United States— (i) an action to enjoin the violation; (ii) an action to recover damages; or (iii) both such actions. (B) Attorney’s fees The court may award to a prevailing party in an action brought under this paragraph reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.
Within one year after enactment and annually thereafter, the FCC would have to report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on implementation during the preceding year, including enforcement and coordination with federal agencies and state attorneys general.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report describing, with respect to the preceding 1-year period, the implementation of this section, including associated enforcement activities and efforts of the Commission to coordinate with Federal agencies and State attorneys general with respect to enforcement activities.
Mobile-service providers would receive a legal shield against claims in courts or administrative agencies for acts taken by them or on their behalf in good faith, with a reasonable basis to believe the acts were necessary or appropriate to detect, identify, locate, mitigate, disrupt, or support enforcement concerning a SIM box.
No cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any provider of mobile service on account of any act undertaken by, or on behalf of, such provider if such act was undertaken in good faith and there was a reasonable basis to believe that such act was necessary or appropriate to detect, identify, locate, mitigate, disrupt, or support an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box
Subject to those conditions, the legal shield would include monitoring a provider's own equipment, networks, or systems and giving federal or state agencies information, facility access, or other reasonable assistance concerning SIM boxes. Covered information could include communication records, communication contents, and other customer or communication information.
if such act was undertaken in good faith and there was a reasonable basis to believe that such act was necessary or appropriate to detect, identify, locate, mitigate, disrupt, or support an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box, including an act— (A) to monitor the equipment, networks, or systems of such provider in relation to detecting, identifying, locating, mitigating, disrupting, or supporting an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box; or (B) to provide to the Commission or another Federal or State agency, in relation to detecting, identifying, locating, mitigating, disrupting, or supporting an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box— (i) information or access to information (including communication records, communication contents, and other information relating to a customer or communication); (ii) access to facilities; or (iii) other reasonable assistance.
The legal shield would not apply to unrelated acts, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith. It would also exclude using, retaining, or disclosing information obtained through covered acts for unrelated purposes, unless that use, retention, or disclosure is required by law.
Paragraph (1) does not apply to any act to the extent such act— (A) is unrelated to detecting, identifying, locating, mitigating, disrupting, or supporting an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box; (B) involves the use, retention, or disclosure of information obtained through an act described in such paragraph for a purpose that is unrelated to the detection, identification, location, mitigation, disruption, or support of an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box, unless such use, retention, or disclosure is required by law; or (C) constitutes willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith.
The new section would not itself require mobile-service providers to monitor their systems or give anyone information, facility access, or assistance. It would also preserve their existing legal defenses.
Nothing in this section may be construed to— (A) create, for a provider of mobile service, a duty to monitor the equipment, networks, or systems of such provider or to provide to any entity— (i) information or access to information (including communication records, communication contents, and other information relating to a customer or communication); (ii) access to facilities; or (iii) other assistance; or (B) affect, with respect to a provider of mobile service, the availability of any legal defense, including a defense under common law or statute.
The proposal would amend section 510(a), identified in the bill as concerning forfeiture of communications devices, to add language covering items involved in activities violating the new SIM-box section or its rules. The existing provision's full conditions and procedures are not supplied, so the amendment's complete forfeiture effects cannot be determined from this text alone.
(b) Forfeiture of communications devices Section 510(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 510(a)) is amended by inserting and any item with respect to which an activity prohibited under section 346 is carried out in violation of such section, or rules prescribed by the Commission under such section, after sections,.
The proposal would add a paragraph to the Communications Act's customer-information privacy provision concerning assistance to a federal agency about a SIM box consistent with the new section. The existing subsection is not reproduced, so the bundle does not establish the amendment's full interaction with existing privacy rules.
(c) Privacy of customer information Section 222(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (3), by striking and at the end; (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (5) to provide assistance to a Federal agency with respect to a SIM box consistent with section 346.
The proposal would preserve other federal-agency authority, including FCC authority concerning caller identification, robocalls, fraud, equipment authorization, telephone numbering, critical infrastructure, spectrum monitoring, disaster response, and public-safety communications.
Nothing in this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, may be construed to limit any other authority of a Federal agency, including the Federal Communications Commission, including any authority with respect to the following: (1) Caller identification. (2) Robocall mitigation. (3) Fraud. (4) Equipment authorization. (5) Numbering administration. (6) Critical infrastructure protection. (7) Radio magnetic spectrum monitoring. (8) Disaster response coordination. (9) Public safety communications.
Conflicting or inconsistent state and local requirements would be displaced. However, stricter limits on SIM boxes, using the new federal definition, would not count as conflicting or inconsistent merely because they are stricter.
No State, or political subdivision of a State, may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts, or is otherwise inconsistent, with this Act, or the amendments made by this Act.
a law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law may not be treated as in conflict, or otherwise inconsistent, with this Act to the extent that such law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision imposes a limitation— (A) with respect to SIM boxes (only as such term is defined in section 346(h) of the Communications Act of 1934); and (B) that is more strict than the limitations imposed by this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.
If a provision or its application were held invalid, the proposal directs that the remaining provisions and their application to other individuals, entities, or circumstances remain unaffected.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any individual, entity, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act, and the application of such provisions to any other individual, entity, or circumstance, may not be affected.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 1, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-15T18:54:46Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. 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 and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark status cannot be established beyond the supplied source set.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
Narrow legal protections, remedies, and exclusions tied to the main policy are identified below. Classification is not a judgment about whether these benefits are justified.
Mobile-service providers would receive special protection against court and administrative claims for qualifying SIM-box-related acts by them or on their behalf. This legal shield requires good faith and a reasonable basis for the act, and excludes unrelated conduct, specified unrelated information uses unless required by law, willful misconduct, gross negligence, and bad faith.
No cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any provider of mobile service on account of any act undertaken by, or on behalf of, such provider if such act was undertaken in good faith and there was a reasonable basis to believe that such act was necessary or appropriate to detect, identify, locate, mitigate, disrupt, or support an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box
Paragraph (1) does not apply to any act to the extent such act— (A) is unrelated to detecting, identifying, locating, mitigating, disrupting, or supporting an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box; (B) involves the use, retention, or disclosure of information obtained through an act described in such paragraph for a purpose that is unrelated to the detection, identification, location, mitigation, disruption, or support of an enforcement action with respect to a SIM box, unless such use, retention, or disclosure is required by law; or (C) constitutes willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith.
FCC-authorized or licensed mobile-service providers would have a specific exclusion for tools used in internal equipment or system testing. FCC-recognized laboratories and testing facilities would have a separate exclusion restricted to sole use within the facility for specified testing, with no offer for sale or public use. These carve-outs would keep qualifying testing tools outside the SIM-box ban.
(B) Exclusions The term SIM box does not include the following:
(iii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely within a laboratory or another testing facility recognized by the Commission for conformance, security, or interoperability testing, if such device, equipment, software, system, or service is not offered for sale or public use. (iv) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used for purposes of the internal testing of equipment or systems by a provider of mobile service authorized or licensed by the Commission.
Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments would receive an official-use carve-out: tools used solely by those governments for an official purpose would fall outside the SIM-box definition and therefore its prohibition.
(B) Exclusions The term SIM box does not include the following:
(ii) Any device, equipment, software, system, or service used solely by a Federal, State, Tribal, or local government for an official purpose.
Mobile-service providers injured by violations of the new SIM-box section or its regulations would receive a provider-specific private right of action in federal district court for an injunction, damages, or both. This narrow remedy directly supports enforcement of the bill's main policy. The court could award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing party, so the fee provision is not limited to provider plaintiffs.
A provider of mobile service injured by an activity in violation of this section, or a regulation promulgated under this section, may bring in an appropriate district court of the United States— (i) an action to enjoin the violation; (ii) an action to recover damages; or (iii) both such actions.
(B) Attorney’s fees The court may award to a prevailing party in an action brought under this paragraph reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI