PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 19, 1999
Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit and set penalties for specified activities relating to personal information about a child (defined as a person under age 16), including knowingly: (1) selling such information (by a list broker) without the written consent of a parent of that child, knowing that such information pertains to a child; (2) using prison inmate labor for data processing of personal information about children; and (3) distributing or soliciting any such information, knowing or having reason to believe that the information will be used to abuse or physically harm the child. Sets penalties for contacting that child or a parent of that child (by a person who uses personal information about a child that was obtained for commercial purposes) to offer a commercial product or service to that child and knowingly failing to comply with a parent's request to: (1) disclose the source of such information, all information that has been sold or otherwise disclosed by that list broker about that child, and the identity of all persons to whom such information has been disclosed; or (2) discontinue providing such information to third parties. Sets penalties for knowingly releasing personal information about another person's child to any entity that intends to use the information to solicit the sale of a product or service, without the permission of that child's parent. Authorizes civil actions by a child or a parent with respect to whom a violation of this Act occurs. Directs the court to award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. Specifies that nothing in this Act affects the sale of lists to: (1) the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (the Center); (2) accredited colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning; (3) the U.S. military; or (4) local, State, or Federal law enforcement agencies. Declares that it shall be the duty of each list broker operating in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to make that broker's databases available twice annually, without charge, to the Center to allow the Center to match it with the database of missing children held by the Center.
People & committees
Rep. Franks, Bob [R-NJ-7] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.369 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.369 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.369 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.369 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.