PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2008
E-fencing Enforcement Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to impose a duty on any online market provider to disclose the contact information (i.e., name, telephone number, and address for service of legal process) of any high volume seller who has listed goods or items for sale on such provider's online marketplace that match the description of stolen goods listed in a signed report from a criminal law enforcement agency. Defines "high volume seller" as any person who, through an online marketplace, sells or offers for sale in a single offering goods or items worth more than $5,000, or more than $12,000 in one or more offerings during the preceding 365 days.
Requires an online market provider to: (1) retain contact information on high volume sellers for three years; and (2) deny high volume sellers access to the marketplace if such provider has good reason to believe that such sellers acquired their goods unlawfully. Allows high volume sellers to bring a civil action to challenge the denial of access to an online marketplace.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] · D–VA
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 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 14, 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.6713 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.6713 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.6713 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.6713 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.