PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2677 / 117th Congress

TIME Act

Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 20, 2021

Technological Innovation through Modernizing Enforcement Act or the TIME Act

This bill limits to a maximum of eight years the duration of consent orders entered into by the Federal Trade Commission.

Further, a consent order that is not related to fraud and is effective for more than five years must include a clause requiring the commission to evaluate the order after five years and terminate the order if it no longer serves its purpose. If an entity has been subject to such a consent order for at least five years, it may petition the commission to terminate the order.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX

Committees

  • Energy and Commerce Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.

    2. Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

    3. Introduced in House

    4. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.2677 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.2677 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.2677 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.2677 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.

    View full prompt & sources