PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 688.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Dec 16, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and authorizes state attorneys general, to enforce against written communications (commonly referred to as demand letters) that represent in bad faith that the recipient bears liability or owes compensation for infringing an asserted patent. The pattern or practice of sending such bad faith demand letters shall be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill sets forth the types of bad faith representations, assertions of legal action, claims of a sender holding an exclusive license, compensation requests, or omissions that are considered to be unfair or deceptive.
The bill provides an affirmative defense if the sender can show that statements, representations, or omissions were mistakes made in good faith, which may be demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.
(Sec. 3) The bill provides the FTC with authority to enforce against violations.
(Sec. 4) The bill preempts state or local laws expressly relating to the transmission or contents of communications regarding the assertion of patent rights. But the bill shall not be contrued to limit any other state laws, including those relating to consumer protection, fraud, deception, trespass, contracts, or torts.
State attorneys general may bring civil actions in federal court to enjoin violations or obtain civil penalties for violations of this bill. The maximum civil penalty for which a person may be liable for a series of related violations is $5 million.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 688.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-877.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-877.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 22.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.2045 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.2045 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.2045 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.2045 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.