PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 21.
Congressional Research Service
Version 25 · Reported to Senate · Mar 1, 2023
Stop Significant and Time-wasting Abuse Limiting Legitimate Innovation of New Generics Act or the Stop STALLING Act
This bill makes it an unfair method of competition to submit an objectively baseless petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an attempt to interfere with a competitor's application for market approval of a drug.
The bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to sue an individual or entity that submits such a petition to the FDA. A party found liable in such a lawsuit shall be subject to civil penalties, such as a fine of up to $50,000 for each day that the FDA spent reviewing the baseless petition.
People & committees
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 21.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Durbin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Durbin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.148 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 S.148 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 S.148 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 S.148 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.