Foundation analysis · Human Rights Strengthening
Foundation draft · Not enacted law
A federal framework for large digital attention platforms, synthetic media systems, monetization integrity, media literacy, public-interest journalism, independent research access, and digital information resilience.
Digital Attention Platform Accountability, Provenance, Media Literacy, and Public-Interest Journalism Framework
Congressional submission packet · 9,675 words · 12 titles
Foundation model docket. Identifiers and proposed referrals are internal and are not official congressional or legislative assignments.
A guide to this proposal
The act treats the information environment as civic infrastructure: platform transparency, board-level accountability, recommender explanations, user controls, sharing friction, synthetic-media provenance, monetization integrity, researcher access, whistleblower protection, media literacy, journalism support, and explicit First Amendment safeguards.
Analysis is commentary. Model text is a proposal. Fiscal scenarios, where provided, are illustrative.
Foundation Analysis
The draft regulates disclosures, provenance, monetization, audits, researcher access, sharing friction, media literacy, and journalism support while expressly rejecting government truth authority and compelled viewpoint balance.
In plain language: The act treats the information environment as civic infrastructure: platform transparency, board-level accountability, recommender explanations, user controls, sharing friction, synthetic-media provenance, monetization integrity, researcher access, whistleblower protection, media literacy, journalism support, and explicit First Amendment safeguards.
Its strongest design choice is to regulate systems rather than official truth: content-neutral triggers, technical provenance, user controls, recommender explanations, monetization integrity, and an editorial firewall are intended to preserve expressive freedom while making platform operations auditable.
The Federal Trade Commission and NIST would need specialized staff, secure data rooms, privacy and trade-secret protocols, audit standards, board and compliance systems, and a process capable of adapting to fast-changing synthetic-media and recommender technologies.
Platform editorial judgment, synthetic-media labels, the assessment fee, researcher access, preemption, and any rulemaking that becomes content-specific create First Amendment and administrative-law exposure. The draft's safeguards are meaningful, but litigation should be expected.
The model estimates roughly $2.9 billion in annual public cost and relies on a digital-attention revenue assessment for offsets. That is not a CBO or JCT score, and the assessment base, platform responses, compliance costs, and program ramp require independent modeling.
the packet offers a coherent systems-accountability framework and a strong editorial firewall. Legislative development should sharpen designation thresholds, define the assessment base, formalize trade-secret and researcher-data protocols, align the FEC interface, and obtain current First Amendment review.
Model legislation for policy development; not enacted law or legal advice. Analysis reflects the supplied July 2026 packet and should be refreshed against current law before legislative use.
Full Text
Read the legislation.
LEGISLATIVE SUBMISSION PACKET
Digital Attention Platform Accountability, Provenance, Media Literacy, and Public-Interest Journalism Framework
| Bill | Information Hygiene and Digital Accountability Act of 2026 |
|---|---|
| Draft sponsor | [Insert sponsor] |
| Congress | [Insert Congress] |
| Committee referral | [Insert committee referrals] |
| Filing date | [Insert filing date] |
| Submission contents | Drafting overview; proposed legislation; section commentary; constitutional and litigation risk analysis; fiscal note; implementation roadmap; quality-check; sources. |
To promote a healthier information ecosystem by requiring large digital attention platforms and synthetic media services to adopt transparency, provenance, user-control, monetization-integrity, research-access, and media-literacy safeguards; to support public-interest journalism through viewpoint-neutral grants; to protect the freedom of speech and of the press; and for other purposes.
Prepared as a congressional submission packet from the attached draft. Bracketed metadata fields remain for filing-specific completion.
The constitutional spine matters because the Supreme Court has treated platform curation and ranking as protected editorial activity, especially for feeds like Facebook News Feed and YouTube’s homepage, and has warned that government may not alter private speakers’ editorial choices merely to create a preferred mix of speech. (Supreme Court [1]) The bill therefore regulates commercial design systems, disclosures, provenance, monetization, auditing, and deceptive business practices, which sit on firmer ground under consumer-protection and transparency law. The FTC already has broad authority over unfair or deceptive acts or practices and investigative/rulemaking tools, and NIST has current work on provenance, labeling, watermarking, detection, and synthetic-content risk reduction. (Federal Trade Commission [2])
This Act establishes a federal framework for large digital attention platforms, synthetic media systems, monetization programs, media literacy, public-interest journalism, and independent research access.
It is designed to make information hygiene a boardroom-level compliance obligation for dominant platforms without creating a government speech police squad. It expressly avoids creating a government truth authority. The bill says: monetize attention if you want, but if your business model floods society with high-arousal manipulative content, you must document the machine, disclose the incentives, preserve provenance, give users friction and control, fund resilience, and answer to auditors.
A BILL
To promote a healthier information ecosystem by requiring large digital attention platforms and synthetic media services to adopt transparency, provenance, user-control, monetization-integrity, research-access, and media-literacy safeguards; to support public-interest journalism through viewpoint-neutral grants; to protect the freedom of speech and of the press; and for other purposes.
This Act may be cited as the “Information Hygiene and Digital Accountability Act of 2026.”
Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Constitutional rule of construction.
Sec. 104. No government truth authority; no compelled viewpoint balance.
Sec. 105. Agency communications with platforms concerning speech.
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Covered platform designation.
Sec. 203. Registration and compliance officer.
Sec. 204. Board-level accountability and executive certification.
Sec. 205. Small entity and limited-function exclusions.
Sec. 301. Algorithmic system cards.
Sec. 302. Public transparency reports.
Sec. 303. User-accessible recommender explanations.
Sec. 304. User controls over personalization.
Sec. 305. Independent algorithmic accountability audits.
Sec. 306. Protection of trade secrets, security, and privacy.
Sec. 401. Content-neutral sharing friction.
Sec. 402. Read-before-share and view-before-share prompts.
Sec. 403. High-velocity redistribution safeguards.
Sec. 404. Bulk-forwarding and automation controls.
Sec. 405. Prohibition on suppressive implementation.
Sec. 406. User and researcher metrics.
Sec. 501. National digital provenance standards.
Sec. 502. Preservation of provenance metadata.
Sec. 503. Synthetic media labeling in paid, monetized, and high-distribution contexts.
Sec. 504. Generative media service duties.
Sec. 505. Impersonation, material deception, and appeal process.
Sec. 506. No duty to judge truth or opinion.
Sec. 601. Standard information-format taxonomy.
Sec. 602. Platform support for voluntary format labels.
Sec. 603. Mandatory labeling of paid and sponsored communications.
Sec. 604. Satire, parody, art, and political speech protection.
Sec. 605. Prohibition on government editorial licensing.
Sec. 701. Creator monetization integrity programs.
Sec. 702. Know-your-payee requirements for large payouts.
Sec. 703. Deceptive amplification and fake engagement.
Sec. 704. Monetization transparency for users and advertisers.
Sec. 705. Revenue-risk assessment for engagement-based payment systems.
Sec. 706. Corrective action plans and independent monitors.
Sec. 801. Vetted researcher access program.
Sec. 802. Secure data rooms and privacy safeguards.
Sec. 803. Public interest research priorities.
Sec. 804. Whistleblower protections.
Sec. 805. Annual public repository.
Sec. 901. National media-literacy grant program.
Sec. 902. Curriculum guardrails.
Sec. 903. Teacher, librarian, and community training.
Sec. 904. Adult and senior media-literacy programs.
Sec. 905. Evaluation and reporting.
Sec. 1001. Public Interest Journalism Fund.
Sec. 1002. Independent board and editorial firewall.
Sec. 1003. Eligible uses.
Sec. 1004. Viewpoint-neutral grant criteria.
Sec. 1005. Local journalism payroll credit.
Sec. 1006. Public records and civic information assistance.
Sec. 1007. Prohibited conditions.
Sec. 1101. Annual assessment on covered digital attention revenue.
Sec. 1102. Deposit and availability of funds.
Sec. 1103. Limitations.
Sec. 1104. Anti-pass-through transparency.
Sec. 1201. Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Sec. 1202. Enforcement by State attorneys general.
Sec. 1203. Civil penalties.
Sec. 1204. Compliance orders and equitable relief.
Sec. 1205. Safe harbors.
Sec. 1206. Relation to section 230.
Sec. 1207. Preemption and savings.
Sec. 1208. Severability.
Sec. 1209. Rulemaking.
Sec. 1210. Effective dates.
Sec. 1211. Authorization of appropriations.
Congress finds the following:
1. Modern civic, cultural, economic, and public-health life depends substantially on digital systems that select, rank, recommend, monetize, and distribute information at scale.
2. Digital attention markets can reward high-arousal distribution patterns, including outrage, fear, humiliation, harassment, deception, synthetic impersonation, and manipulative amplification, without requiring the platform operator to adopt those messages as its own.
3. A democratic society has a substantial interest in ensuring that dominant digital attention businesses operate with transparency, accountability, consumer protection, user control, provenance, and research access.
4. The freedom of speech and of the press prohibits the Government from licensing journalism, deciding truth or falsity of ordinary public debate, compelling viewpoint balance, requiring platforms to carry or suppress lawful expression, or coercing private moderation decisions.
5. Congress may regulate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, commercial disclosures, digital advertising, monetization systems, synthetic-media provenance, education grants, federal spending programs, federal procurement, taxation, and interstate digital markets.
6. The public interest is served by improving media literacy, supporting independent public-interest journalism through viewpoint-neutral structures, and reducing commercial incentives for deceptive amplification.
The purposes of this Act are:
1. to require large digital attention platforms to disclose how major recommender and monetization systems operate at a meaningful level of generality;
2. to create content-neutral friction before rapid redistribution of high-velocity content;
3. to improve provenance for images, video, audio, and synthetic media;
4. to require clear labeling of paid, sponsored, synthetic, and self-designated format categories where constitutionally permissible;
5. to reduce monetization incentives for deceptive amplification, fake engagement, undisclosed sponsorship, impersonation, and synthetic deception;
6. to expand media literacy from childhood through adulthood;
7. to support public-interest journalism without government editorial control;
8. to create enforceable duties for covered businesses while preserving expressive freedom.
(a) In General. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any officer, employee, contractor, grantee, or agent of the United States to:
1. determine the truth or falsity of lawful speech in public debate;
2. require the removal, suppression, demotion, demonetization, labeling as false, or disfavoring of lawful speech because of viewpoint, ideology, religion, political opinion, journalistic judgment, scientific theory, artistic expression, satire, parody, or criticism of government;
3. require a covered platform to carry, recommend, rank, prioritize, or amplify any lawful speech;
4. require viewpoint balance, ideological neutrality, equal time, fairness, or proportional representation in a private platform’s editorial, ranking, recommendation, or curation decisions;
5. condition any federal benefit, grant, procurement, license, settlement, enforcement discretion, or regulatory treatment on favorable or unfavorable treatment of lawful speech.
(b) Protected Editorial Judgment. A covered platform retains editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, subject only to content-neutral, viewpoint-neutral, and constitutionally permissible duties concerning transparency, consumer protection, commercial disclosures, provenance, privacy, data access, audits, taxation, and unfair or deceptive business practices.
(c) Least Speech-Restrictive Construction. Each provision of this Act shall be construed, where fairly possible, to avoid burdening protected speech or press activity.
(a) No Truth Registry. No agency may create, maintain, fund, or require use of a federal registry, list, database, index, score, rating, or classification of persons, publications, speakers, viewpoints, ideologies, or lawful content as true, false, misleading, extremist, harmful, trustworthy, untrustworthy, approved, or disapproved.
(b) No Official News Licensing. No person shall be required to obtain federal recognition, registration, licensing, or approval as a journalist, news organization, commentator, satirist, analyst, creator, or publisher.
(c) No Federal Viewpoint Conditions. Grants or benefits under this Act shall be awarded without regard to whether the recipient’s lawful editorial, political, religious, scientific, cultural, artistic, or ideological views align with any federal, state, local, or platform position.
(a) Written Communications Required. Except as provided in subsection (d), any communication by a federal agency to a covered platform concerning the moderation, labeling, ranking, removal, restriction, amplification, or monetization of specific lawful user-generated content shall be in writing.
(b) Public Log. Each agency shall maintain a publicly available quarterly log of communications described in subsection (a), including:
1. the agency and office involved;
2. the date of communication;
3. the platform contacted;
4. whether the communication concerned illegal content, cybersecurity, fraud, impersonation, imminent harm, court order compliance, national security, or another category;
5. whether any action was requested or merely information was provided.
(c) No Coercion. No agency may threaten, expressly or by implication, adverse regulatory, enforcement, procurement, grant, tax, antitrust, licensing, or legislative consequences for a covered platform’s refusal to remove, suppress, label, rank, or demonetize lawful speech.
(d) Exceptions. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to communications that:
1. are made pursuant to a court order, warrant, subpoena, civil investigative demand, lawful national security process, or emergency disclosure process;
2. concern child sexual abuse material, human trafficking, nonconsensual intimate imagery, cyber intrusions, fraud, terrorism, true threats, stalking, or other unlawful conduct;
3. would reveal classified information or compromise an active law-enforcement, cybersecurity, or national-security investigation.
(e) Annual Inspector General Review. Each agency that regularly communicates with covered platforms shall submit an annual report to its Inspector General evaluating compliance with this section.
In this Act:
1. Commission means the Federal Trade Commission.
2. Covered digital attention platform means an online service, website, application, or connected digital environment that:
(A) is operated for profit or commercial advantage;
(B) distributes, recommends, ranks, amplifies, monetizes, or enables public or semi-public sharing of user-generated content, creator content, news content, paid content, or synthetic media;
(C) uses a recommender system, personalized ranking system, trending system, paid amplification system, creator monetization program, advertising exchange, or engagement-based distribution mechanism; and
(D) meets the threshold under section 202.
3. Covered digital attention revenue means gross revenue derived from digital advertising, paid amplification, sponsored content placement, creator monetization intermediation, subscription products tied to algorithmic distribution, data-driven targeting, recommender-system monetization, or other commercial use of attention, engagement, reach, impressions, or user profiling in the United States.
4. Covered recommender system means any computational process, including a machine-learning model, ranking model, rules-based ranking system, trending system, retrieval system, or hybrid system, that selects, orders, prioritizes, suggests, promotes, demotes, queues, autoplays, or otherwise distributes content to users based in whole or substantial part on predicted relevance, predicted engagement, user behavior, user profiling, content features, social graph, payment, or platform objectives.
5. High-distribution content means public or semi-public content that, during a measurement period established by rule, receives impressions, views, shares, forwards, reposts, paid impressions, recommendations, or other distribution exceeding the greater of:
(A) 500,000 United States user impressions in 24 hours;
(B) 2,000,000 United States user impressions in 7 days; or
(C) a platform-specific distribution threshold established by the Commission that captures not more than the top 0.5 percent of distributed content on the platform.
6. High-velocity redistribution event means a content distribution pattern in which a discrete item of content is reshared, reposted, forwarded, quoted, stitched, remixed, or otherwise redistributed at a rate exceeding thresholds established under title IV, without regard to viewpoint, ideology, topic, or truthfulness.
7. Monetized account means an account, page, channel, publisher profile, creator profile, or other user-controlled presence that receives or is eligible to receive compensation, revenue share, gifts convertible to money, bonuses, subscriptions, tips, paid amplification, advertising proceeds, or other financial benefit from a covered platform based substantially on content distribution, engagement, audience size, or user attention.
8. Synthetic media means image, audio, video, or audiovisual content that has been generated or materially altered by artificial intelligence, machine learning, generative software, voice cloning, face swapping, digital rendering, or similar computational means in a manner that materially affects a reasonable viewer’s understanding of the depicted speaker, event, source, or scene.
9. High-impact synthetic media means synthetic media that materially appears to depict:
(A) a real identifiable person saying or doing something that the person did not say or do;
(B) a public official, candidate, journalist, emergency responder, medical professional, law-enforcement officer, court officer, military officer, or corporate officer acting in an official or professional capacity;
(C) a disaster, violent event, public-health emergency, military event, election administration event, financial event, judicial proceeding, or governmental action; or
(D) a product, service, consumer transaction, health claim, investment claim, or endorsement in commerce.
10. Provenance metadata means metadata, cryptographic credentialing, watermarking, fingerprinting, signed history, or other technical information indicating the origin, source, creation method, edit history, synthetic status, or chain of custody of digital media.
11. Sharing friction means a content-neutral user-interface step that requires a user to pause, open, view, read, confirm, or otherwise acknowledge a neutral distribution prompt before redistributing content. Sharing friction does not include removal, suppression, de-amplification, shadow banning, viewpoint classification, or blocking access to lawful content.
12. Vetted researcher means a researcher affiliated with a nonprofit institution, institution of higher education, public-interest research organization, newsroom research unit, or governmental statistical agency who is approved under title VIII.
13. Public-interest journalism means the gathering, verification, production, publication, or distribution of newsworthy information concerning civic affairs, local communities, government, courts, schools, public health, public safety, labor, business, science, environment, culture, infrastructure, or other matters of public concern, without regard to viewpoint.
(a) Threshold. A platform shall be a covered digital attention platform if, during any 3 months in the preceding calendar year, it:
1. had not fewer than 50,000,000 monthly active users in the United States;
2. had not fewer than 10,000,000 monthly active users in the United States and not less than $1,000,000,000 in annual covered digital attention revenue; or
3. is designated by the Commission after notice and opportunity to respond because it has substantial national distribution power, substantial monetized content reach, and material use of recommender systems affecting interstate commerce.
(b) Designation List. The Commission shall publish and update not less than annually a list of covered digital attention platforms.
(c) Petition for Review. A platform may petition the Commission for reconsideration of designation. A final designation shall be reviewable in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(a) Registration. Each covered platform shall register with the Commission not later than 120 days after becoming subject to this Act.
(b) Chief Information Integrity Compliance Officer. Each covered platform shall designate a senior executive as Chief Information Integrity Compliance Officer.
(c) Duties. The officer shall have authority to oversee compliance with this Act, including:
1. transparency reporting;
2. sharing-friction systems;
3. provenance preservation;
4. synthetic media labeling systems;
5. monetization integrity;
6. researcher access;
7. audit response;
8. privacy and civil-rights safeguards.
(d) Independence. The officer shall report not less than quarterly to the board of directors or equivalent governing body.
(a) Board Committee. Each covered platform shall establish a board committee or equivalent governing mechanism responsible for oversight of obligations under this Act.
(b) Annual Certification. The chief executive officer and Chief Information Integrity Compliance Officer shall annually certify to the Commission that:
1. they have reviewed the platform’s compliance program;
2. the platform has implemented reasonable internal controls;
3. submitted reports are accurate in all material respects;
4. known material failures have been disclosed;
5. corrective action plans have been adopted for unresolved material failures.
(c) False Certification. A knowing false certification shall be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice and shall be subject to civil penalties under title XII.
(a) Exclusions. The term “covered digital attention platform” shall not include:
1. a small business concern;
2. a nonprofit discussion forum with fewer than 10,000,000 monthly active United States users;
3. an email, direct messaging, encrypted messaging, voice, or video-calling service to the extent the service is not used for public or semi-public algorithmic distribution;
4. a cloud storage, web-hosting, domain registration, payment processing, cybersecurity, or enterprise software provider acting only in that capacity;
5. a library, school, university, research network, or public archive acting primarily for educational, archival, or research purposes.
(b) No Evasion. A platform may not evade coverage by dividing substantially integrated services, accounts, applications, or corporate affiliates.
(a) System Card Required. Each covered platform shall publish an algorithmic system card for each major covered recommender system.
(b) Contents. A system card shall describe, in plain language:
1. the system’s principal purpose;
2. the categories of content or accounts to which it applies;
3. the major categories of ranking, recommendation, retrieval, and amplification signals;
4. whether the system uses engagement prediction, watch time, shares, comments, reactions, dwell time, social graph, location, demographic inference, payment, creator status, or prior user behavior;
5. how paid content, sponsored content, monetized content, synthetic media labels, provenance metadata, user reports, and safety signals are treated at a general level;
6. available user controls;
7. general methods for measuring distribution, engagement, and user feedback;
8. material changes during the reporting period.
(c) Level of Detail. A system card need not disclose source code, model weights, trade secrets, security-sensitive information, anti-abuse methods, or information that would materially facilitate evasion, fraud, spam, harassment, or cyber abuse.
(d) Update Frequency. System cards shall be updated not less than twice each year and within 60 days after a material change.
(a) Annual Report. Each covered platform shall publish an annual transparency report.
(b) Required Metrics. The report shall include aggregate United States metrics concerning:
1. monthly active users;
2. content impressions by major distribution surface;
3. share, repost, forward, quote, stitch, remix, and similar redistribution volume;
4. high-velocity redistribution events;
5. use and bypass rate of sharing friction;
6. prevalence of paid and sponsored content labels;
7. prevalence of synthetic media labels and provenance credentials;
8. creator monetization payouts by distribution bands;
9. known fake engagement enforcement;
10. appeals submitted and resolved under this Act;
11. researcher requests received, granted, denied, and pending;
12. material incidents affecting compliance.
(c) No Viewpoint Reporting. The Commission may not require reporting by political party, ideology, religion, viewpoint, lawful advocacy position, or protected association.
(a) General Explanation. Each covered platform shall provide users a readily accessible explanation of why categories of content are recommended or prioritized.
(b) Advertisements. For each advertisement or paid placement, a covered platform shall provide a “why am I seeing this” disclosure identifying material targeting or delivery criteria, including:
1. advertiser identity;
2. whether payment affected delivery;
3. general targeting criteria selected by the advertiser;
4. general platform delivery criteria used to optimize the advertisement;
5. user controls for ad personalization.
(c) Recommended Content. For organic recommended content, the platform shall provide a category-level explanation of major recommendation factors, which may include user follows, prior interaction, location at a general level, language, popularity, topic inferred by the platform, or platform settings.
(d) No Individualized Moderation Mandate. Nothing in this section requires individualized explanations for every moderation, ranking, removal, or labeling decision.
(a) Controls Required. Each covered platform shall provide users with accessible controls to:
1. view and reset major categories of inferred interests used for recommendation or advertising;
2. pause use of off-platform activity for personalization, where applicable;
3. reduce personalization based on sensitive inferences prohibited by law;
4. manage autoplay and infinite-scroll features where technically feasible;
5. modify or reset recommendation history;
6. report suspected synthetic impersonation, hidden sponsorship, or fake engagement.
(b) No Mandatory Editorial Design. This section does not require any platform to provide a chronological feed, carry any content, remove any content, or alter the viewpoint composition of any feed.
(c) Dark Pattern Prohibition. A covered platform shall not design user controls required by this section in a manner that materially impairs, obscures, subverts, or manipulates a user’s ability to exercise the control.
(a) Annual Audit. Each covered platform shall obtain an annual independent audit of compliance with this Act.
(b) Auditor Qualifications. Auditors shall meet independence, technical competence, confidentiality, security, and conflict-of-interest standards established by the Commission.
(c) Audit Scope. The audit shall assess:
1. accuracy of transparency reports;
2. implementation of sharing friction;
3. provenance preservation;
4. synthetic media labeling systems;
5. monetization integrity controls;
6. researcher access compliance;
7. complaint and appeal handling;
8. compliance governance;
9. material risks of deceptive amplification;
10. privacy and data minimization safeguards.
(d) Submission. A covered platform shall submit the full audit to the Commission and publish a public summary.
(e) Corrective Action. For each material deficiency, the platform shall submit a corrective action plan with timelines and responsible officers.
(a) Confidential Treatment. The Commission shall protect trade secrets, confidential business information, security-sensitive information, and personal information submitted under this Act.
(b) Public Summaries. Public disclosures shall be written to provide meaningful accountability without revealing source code, model weights, user-level data, security vulnerabilities, or anti-abuse details that would facilitate evasion.
(c) Privacy. No covered platform may disclose personal information under this Act except as expressly authorized, aggregated, de-identified, protected through a secure data room, or required by lawful process.
(a) Duty. Each covered platform that provides one-click or low-friction redistribution shall implement content-neutral sharing friction for objective high-velocity redistribution events.
(b) Permissible Friction. Sharing friction may include:
1. a prompt encouraging the user to open, read, view, or listen before resharing;
2. a notice that the content is being rapidly redistributed;
3. a prompt identifying available provenance metadata or absence of available provenance metadata;
4. a confirmation step before bulk forwarding;
5. a short cooldown for repeated bulk actions by the same account;
6. rate limits on automated redistribution.
(c) Content Neutrality. Required friction shall be triggered by distribution velocity, user interaction, automation indicators, provenance status, or bulk action patterns, and not by viewpoint, ideology, political position, religious belief, lawful opinion, or government assessment of truthfulness.
(d) No Blocking. Sharing friction shall not prevent a user from accessing, quoting, criticizing, linking to, or sharing lawful content, except as otherwise authorized by law.
(a) Prompt Required. A covered platform shall provide a neutral prompt when a user attempts to redistribute linked content, video, audio, or long-form text that the user has not opened, played, viewed, or otherwise meaningfully accessed through the platform interface.
(b) Prompt Language. The prompt shall use viewpoint-neutral language, such as: “You have not opened this item. Consider reviewing it before sharing.”
(c) User Choice. The user may proceed after the prompt.
(d) No Truth Judgment. The prompt may not state or imply that the content is false, misleading, harmful, extremist, or disputed unless such statement is based on a voluntary platform policy not required by the Government.
(a) Thresholds. The Commission shall, by rule, establish objective high-velocity redistribution thresholds.
(b) Requirements. For content meeting such thresholds, a covered platform shall:
1. activate sharing friction;
2. preserve records of distribution metrics for not less than 1 year;
3. include the event in aggregate transparency reports;
4. evaluate whether the event involved fake engagement, automated redistribution, undisclosed paid amplification, or coordinated deceptive activity.
(c) No Content Moderation Requirement. Nothing in this section requires removal, demotion, labeling, or demonetization of content based on subject matter, viewpoint, or truthfulness.
(a) Bulk Controls. Covered platforms shall maintain reasonable controls to detect and limit automated or bulk redistribution that materially contributes to deceptive amplification.
(b) Automation Signals. Controls may consider account age, posting rate, device patterns, repeated identical content, known bot infrastructure, paid amplification, and other viewpoint-neutral indicators.
(c) Appeal. A user materially restricted by automation controls shall have access to a reasonable appeal process.
A covered platform may not represent that this Act requires the platform to suppress, remove, demote, shadow ban, or demonetize lawful speech when this Act does not require such action.
The Commission shall require covered platforms to publish aggregate metrics sufficient to evaluate whether sharing friction reduces unreviewed redistribution, bulk forwarding, and deceptive amplification without materially preventing lawful user expression.
(a) NIST Standards. Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop or identify voluntary consensus standards for digital provenance, synthetic media labeling, watermarking, credentialing, detection, auditing, and interoperability.
(b) Technology Neutrality. Standards shall be technology-neutral, vendor-neutral, privacy-protective, security-aware, and capable of revision as technology evolves.
(c) Considerations. Standards shall address:
1. cryptographic provenance credentials;
2. durable watermarking;
3. metadata preservation;
4. edit history;
5. synthetic media generation disclosures;
6. removal or stripping of metadata;
7. adversarial manipulation;
8. accessibility;
9. privacy and safety risks to creators, journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, and vulnerable persons.
(d) No Exclusive Standard. No private standard shall be deemed exclusively required unless adopted through rulemaking.
(a) Duty to Preserve. A covered platform shall not knowingly strip, remove, or materially degrade provenance metadata from public image, video, audio, or audiovisual content when technically feasible, unless removal is necessary to protect privacy, safety, cybersecurity, or legal compliance.
(b) Display. Where provenance metadata is available and technically verifiable, a covered platform shall provide users a reasonable means to inspect or access such information.
(c) Limitations. A platform shall not be liable under this section merely because provenance metadata is absent, inaccurate, stripped before upload, technically unverifiable, or incompatible, unless the platform knowingly caused the defect in violation of subsection (a).
(a) Mandatory Labeling. A covered platform shall require clear and conspicuous synthetic media disclosure for high-impact synthetic media when the content is:
1. a paid advertisement;
2. sponsored content;
3. distributed by a monetized account and reaches high-distribution content thresholds;
4. used to sell, promote, or endorse a product, service, investment, employment opportunity, health claim, or financial transaction;
5. materially likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about the identity, endorsement, or conduct of a real person in commerce.
(b) Disclosure Content. The disclosure shall be factual and limited to creation or alteration method, such as: “Synthetic or digitally altered media.”
(c) No Opinion Labeling. A synthetic media label shall not state or imply that the viewpoint, message, argument, satire, parody, criticism, or opinion expressed in the content is false or disfavored.
(d) User Correction. Users and depicted persons shall have a process to contest inaccurate labels or request labels for synthetic impersonation.
(a) Covered Generative Media Service. This section applies to a commercial service that generates or materially alters image, video, audio, or audiovisual content using artificial intelligence and has:
1. at least 10,000,000 monthly active United States users; or
2. at least $100,000,000 in annual United States revenue from generative media tools.
(b) Duties. A covered generative media service shall:
1. provide users with a reasonable means to attach provenance metadata to generated media;
2. apply default provenance signaling for generated image, video, audio, or audiovisual content, unless the user disables it for lawful privacy, safety, security, journalistic, artistic, or other legitimate reasons;
3. provide clear documentation explaining the provenance feature;
4. maintain reasonable safeguards against use of the service for deceptive commercial impersonation;
5. preserve records of enterprise API customers using the service for paid advertising or mass distribution, subject to privacy and security protections.
(c) No Ban on Anonymous Speech. Nothing in this section requires a user to disclose personal identity to the public as a condition of creating or publishing lawful expression.
(a) Impersonation Reporting. Covered platforms shall provide a process for an identifiable person or authorized representative to report high-impact synthetic media that falsely depicts that person in a paid, monetized, or high-distribution context.
(b) Available Responses. A platform may respond by labeling, reducing monetization, disabling paid promotion, notifying viewers of provenance status, or taking action under its own policies.
(c) No Government Removal Mandate. This section does not require removal of lawful satire, parody, commentary, criticism, news reporting, documentary use, artistic expression, or political expression.
(d) Appeal. The uploader shall have a reasonable appeal process.
No covered platform, generative media service, agency, court, or grantee shall construe this title to require determination of whether a lawful opinion, prediction, interpretation, satire, parody, or claim in public debate is true or false.
(a) Taxonomy. The Commission, in consultation with the Librarian of Congress, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Endowment for the Humanities, journalists, civil-liberties organizations, educators, publishers, platforms, accessibility experts, and the public, shall develop a voluntary standard taxonomy for information formats.
(b) Categories. The taxonomy may include:
1. news reporting;
2. analysis;
3. opinion or commentary;
4. satire or parody;
5. advertising;
6. sponsored content;
7. public service announcement;
8. government communication;
9. user commentary;
10. synthetic or substantially altered media;
11. archived or historical content;
12. emergency information.
(c) No Truth Classification. The taxonomy shall classify format, source context, or payment status only and shall not classify truthfulness, reliability, ideology, quality, trustworthiness, or viewpoint.
(a) Support Required. Covered platforms shall provide a technically reasonable means for publishers, creators, advertisers, and users to apply voluntary format labels consistent with the taxonomy.
(b) Display. Covered platforms shall display voluntary format labels in a clear and accessible manner when provided and technically valid.
(c) No Mandatory Label for Ordinary Speech. Except for paid, sponsored, synthetic, or commercial contexts expressly covered by this Act or another law, no person shall be required to label lawful speech as news, opinion, satire, parody, or commentary.
(a) Paid Communications. A covered platform shall require clear and conspicuous labeling of paid advertisements, sponsored content, paid influencer content, affiliate marketing, and other compensated placements.
(b) Material Connection. A platform shall require a monetized account or advertiser to disclose material connections where omission would be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.
(c) FTC Authority Preserved. This section supplements, and does not limit, the Commission’s authority over endorsements, testimonials, fake reviews, advertising disclosures, unfair acts, and deceptive practices.
(a) Protection. Satire, parody, humor, dramatic works, artistic works, commentary, criticism, political speech, religious speech, and journalistic expression shall not be penalized under this title for failure to adopt a voluntary format label.
(b) No Satire License. No person shall be required to register as a satirist, comedian, artist, commentator, journalist, or political speaker.
No federal agency may condition access to grants, data, platform services, press credentials, public information, or other benefits under this Act on agreement with any government editorial standard, ideology, viewpoint, or preferred narrative.
(a) Program Required. Each covered platform operating a monetization program shall maintain a Creator Monetization Integrity Program.
(b) Program Elements. The program shall include:
1. written monetization eligibility standards;
2. disclosure of material payment formulas at a general level;
3. internal controls against fake engagement, bot-driven payouts, undisclosed paid promotion, synthetic impersonation, sanctions evasion, and deceptive commercial content;
4. risk-based review of high-payout accounts;
5. advertiser controls concerning placement next to monetized content;
6. an appeal process for suspension or termination from monetization;
7. annual audit testing.
(c) No Viewpoint Discrimination Requirement. The program may not be required by the Commission to favor or disfavor any lawful viewpoint.
(a) Verification. A covered platform shall conduct reasonable payee verification for any monetized account receiving more than $10,000 in a calendar year from the platform.
(b) Required Information. Verification may include legal name, tax identification information, payment destination, country of residence or organization, beneficial ownership for entities, and sanctions-screening information.
(c) Public Disclosure. A platform shall not publicly disclose personal identity information under this section, except that it may display whether an account is monetized and the country of operation at a general level for high-distribution monetized accounts.
(d) Privacy Protection. Payee data shall be protected through reasonable security safeguards and used only for compliance, tax, payment, fraud, sanctions, and legal purposes.
(a) Unfair or Deceptive Practice. It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a covered platform, monetized account, advertiser, broker, or vendor knowingly to sell, purchase, generate, broker, or materially benefit from fake engagement or deceptive amplification in commerce.
(b) Covered Conduct. Covered conduct includes:
1. fake followers, views, likes, shares, comments, saves, ratings, or reviews;
2. bot networks materially misrepresented as human engagement;
3. undisclosed paid engagement pods;
4. deceptive mass account creation;
5. paid impersonation;
6. manipulated metrics sold or represented as authentic;
7. monetization claims based on engagement that the claimant knows or should know is fake.
(c) Platform Duty. A covered platform shall maintain reasonable systems to detect, prevent, investigate, and remediate fake engagement that materially affects monetization, advertising, or public metrics.
(d) No Liability for Ordinary Users. Ordinary users shall not be liable under this section for good-faith personal expression, parody, pseudonymous speech, or noncommercial sharing.
(a) User Disclosure. Covered platforms shall provide users a clear indication when an account is monetized by platform payments, subscriptions, gifts, affiliate links, or paid sponsorship, where technically feasible and material to a reasonable user.
(b) Advertiser Disclosure. Covered platforms shall provide advertisers aggregate information concerning placement adjacent to monetized content, synthetic media labels, and known brand-safety categories selected by the advertiser.
(c) Public Aggregate Report. Covered platforms shall annually report:
1. total United States creator monetization payouts;
2. payout distribution by account percentile;
3. number of accounts removed from monetization for fake engagement, undisclosed sponsorship, impersonation, or synthetic deception;
4. appeals and reinstatement rates;
5. estimated revenue associated with high-distribution monetized content.
(a) Assessment Required. Each covered platform shall conduct an annual revenue-risk assessment of any payment, ranking, bonus, creator fund, revenue-share, or advertising system that materially rewards engagement, watch time, shares, comments, or outrage-sensitive interaction metrics.
(b) Assessment Contents. The assessment shall evaluate whether the system materially incentivizes:
1. fake engagement;
2. deceptive amplification;
3. undisclosed paid influence;
4. synthetic impersonation;
5. harassment-for-profit;
6. repeated violation of the platform’s own monetization standards;
7. bulk redistribution designed primarily to manipulate attention metrics.
(c) Controls. The platform shall adopt reasonable controls to mitigate identified risks, which may include payment holds, verification, advertiser controls, reduced payment weight for suspicious engagement, human review of high-payout accounts, and removal from monetization.
(d) No Content-Based Mandate. The Commission may not require a platform to define “rage,” “outrage,” “harmful opinion,” “political extremism,” or any similar content category as a basis for monetization action.
(a) Material Failure. If an audit identifies a material failure in monetization integrity, the Commission may require a corrective action plan.
(b) Independent Monitor. For repeated knowing violations, the Commission may require appointment of an independent compliance monitor for not more than 3 years.
(c) Scope. The monitor shall evaluate compliance with this Act and shall not direct editorial, ranking, viewpoint, or content-moderation decisions.
(a) Program Established. The Commission, in consultation with the National Science Foundation, shall establish a program through which vetted researchers may request access to platform data necessary to study systemic information-distribution risks.
(b) Eligible Research. Eligible research may concern:
1. recommender-system distribution patterns;
2. sharing friction;
3. synthetic media provenance;
4. fake engagement;
5. deceptive amplification;
6. advertising transparency;
7. creator monetization incentives;
8. media literacy interventions;
9. public-interest journalism distribution;
10. privacy-protective measurement methods.
(c) No Viewpoint Policing. Research access may not be used to create government lists of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, ideologies, publications, journalists, or lawful content.
(a) Secure Access. Covered platforms shall provide approved researchers access through secure data rooms, privacy-preserving APIs, aggregated datasets, synthetic datasets, or other approved methods.
(b) Data Minimization. Access shall be limited to data reasonably necessary for approved research.
(c) Prohibited Disclosure. Researchers may not disclose personal information, trade secrets, security-sensitive information, or data that would facilitate abuse.
(d) Independent Review. Research protocols involving personal data shall be reviewed by an institutional review board or equivalent ethics body.
The Commission and National Science Foundation shall publish biennial research priorities concerning information-system transparency, privacy-preserving measurement, provenance, synthetic media, deceptive amplification, media literacy, and monetization incentives.
(a) Protected Disclosure. A covered platform may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, blacklist, or otherwise discriminate against an employee, contractor, auditor, or researcher because that person lawfully disclosed information reasonably believed to show a violation of this Act.
(b) Recipient. Protected disclosures may be made to:
1. the Commission;
2. Congress;
3. an Inspector General;
4. a state attorney general;
5. an internal compliance officer;
6. an independent auditor;
7. a court or administrative tribunal.
(c) Remedies. A prevailing whistleblower may receive reinstatement, double back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and such equitable relief as a court considers appropriate.
The Commission shall maintain a public repository containing:
1. platform registrations;
2. public transparency reports;
3. system cards;
4. audit summaries;
5. enforcement orders;
6. rulemaking materials;
7. researcher-access statistics;
8. agency communication logs required under section 105.
(a) Establishment. The Secretary of Education shall establish a National Media-Literacy Grant Program.
(b) Eligible Recipients. Grants may be awarded to states, local educational agencies, tribal educational agencies, public libraries, institutions of higher education, nonprofit educational organizations, public media organizations, and consortia thereof.
(c) Permissible Uses. Grants may support:
1. age-appropriate media literacy beginning in elementary school;
2. source evaluation;
3. distinction between advertising, sponsored content, opinion, analysis, satire, news reporting, and synthetic media;
4. understanding algorithms and digital attention systems;
5. recognizing fake engagement and undisclosed paid influence;
6. privacy and data literacy;
7. civil disagreement and evidence evaluation;
8. teacher and librarian training;
9. family and community education;
10. accessibility for students with disabilities and English learners.
(a) Viewpoint Neutrality. Curriculum funded under this title shall not promote, oppose, endorse, or penalize any political party, candidate, religion, ideology, lawful viewpoint, or position on public policy.
(b) No Official Truth Lists. Curriculum may teach methods for evaluating sources and claims but may not require students to accept a government list of approved or disapproved speakers, publications, or viewpoints.
(c) Local Control. Nothing in this title authorizes the Secretary of Education to mandate a national curriculum.
The Secretary of Education shall prioritize grants that provide practical training to teachers, librarians, school counselors, youth workers, and community educators.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services shall administer grants for adult and senior media-literacy programs through public libraries, community colleges, senior centers, veterans organizations, and community nonprofits.
Grant recipients shall report aggregate outcomes, including participation, curriculum adoption, educator training, and evidence of improved media-literacy competencies, without collecting unnecessary personal information.
(a) Establishment. There is established in the Treasury the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
(b) Purpose. The Fund shall support viewpoint-neutral grants, fellowships, tax credits, public records assistance, civic information infrastructure, and local journalism capacity.
(c) Administration. The Fund shall be administered by the Public Interest Journalism Board established under section 1002.
(a) Board Established. There is established an independent Public Interest Journalism Board.
(b) Composition. The Board shall consist of 11 members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, including individuals with experience in journalism, local news, nonprofit governance, public media, libraries, First Amendment law, rural communities, tribal communities, media literacy, financial management, and technology.
(c) Political Balance. Not more than 6 members may be affiliated with the same political party.
(d) Editorial Firewall. The Board, federal agencies, and grant administrators may not direct, supervise, approve, disapprove, preview, alter, suppress, retaliate against, or otherwise influence editorial content.
(e) Term. Members shall serve staggered 6-year terms.
Funds may be used for:
1. local reporting positions;
2. court, school board, city council, county, tribal, statehouse, and public-agency coverage;
3. investigative reporting;
4. public records litigation and access;
5. translation and accessibility;
6. rural and underserved community reporting;
7. emergency and disaster information;
8. newsroom cybersecurity;
9. journalism apprenticeships;
10. civic data infrastructure;
11. nonprofit newsroom capacity;
12. public media local reporting.
(a) Criteria. Grants shall be awarded based on objective criteria, including:
1. local information need;
2. demonstrated reporting capacity;
3. editorial independence;
4. financial need;
5. community service;
6. transparency of ownership and funding;
7. correction policy;
8. non-discrimination compliance;
9. sustainability plan;
10. avoidance of conflicts of interest.
(b) Prohibited Criteria. Grants may not be awarded or denied based on viewpoint, ideology, party affiliation, endorsement decisions, editorial position, criticism of government, or coverage favorable or unfavorable to any person.
(a) Credit Established. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to allow an eligible local journalism employer a refundable payroll tax credit for qualified local journalist wages.
(b) Eligible Employer. An eligible local journalism employer is an employer that:
1. produces original local journalism;
2. employs fewer than 750 employees;
3. publicly discloses ownership;
4. maintains editorial independence;
5. is not controlled by a political party, candidate committee, government agency, foreign government, or platform subject to title II.
(c) Credit Amount. The credit shall equal 50 percent of the first $60,000 of annual qualified wages paid to each qualified local journalist, reduced to 30 percent after the first 2 years of the employee’s covered service.
(d) Sunset. This section shall sunset 10 years after enactment unless reauthorized.
(a) Program. The Board shall fund legal and technical assistance for public records access, open meetings coverage, civic data access, and public-interest records preservation.
(b) No Editorial Control. Assistance may not be conditioned on editorial viewpoint.
No recipient of funds under this title shall be required to publish, suppress, endorse, reject, investigate, avoid, promote, or criticize any story, viewpoint, person, candidate, party, government, corporation, union, religion, ideology, or policy.
(a) Assessment. Each covered platform with more than $2,000,000,000 in annual covered digital attention revenue in the United States shall pay an annual Digital Information Resilience Assessment.
(b) Amount. The assessment shall equal:
1. 0 percent of the first $2,000,000,000 in annual covered digital attention revenue;
2. 0.35 percent of annual covered digital attention revenue greater than $2,000,000,000 and not greater than $10,000,000,000;
3. 0.75 percent of annual covered digital attention revenue greater than $10,000,000,000.
(c) Purpose. The assessment is imposed to recover public costs associated with digital attention market transparency, synthetic media provenance, media literacy, independent research, and public-interest civic information.
(d) No Content Basis. The assessment shall not vary based on viewpoint, ideology, content category, editorial policy, moderation policy, political affiliation, or treatment of lawful speech.
(a) Deposit. Amounts collected shall be deposited in the Digital Information Resilience Account in the Treasury.
(b) Availability. Amounts shall be available, subject to appropriation, for:
1. Commission enforcement and technical capacity;
2. NIST provenance standards;
3. National Science Foundation research access administration;
4. media-literacy grants;
5. public-interest journalism support;
6. Inspector General oversight.
No assessment funds may be used to:
1. create a government truth database;
2. pressure platforms to suppress lawful speech;
3. fund viewpoint-based content monitoring;
4. condition grants on editorial viewpoint;
5. pay for government advertising promoting a political party or candidate.
A covered platform that imposes a separate line-item charge on advertisers, creators, or consumers to recover the assessment shall clearly identify the charge and may not falsely represent that the Government required the platform to impose that specific line-item charge.
(a) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. A violation of this Act or a rule promulgated under this Act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
(b) Powers. The Commission may use all powers available under the Federal Trade Commission Act, including investigation, civil investigative demands, rulemaking, administrative enforcement, civil penalties, consumer redress where authorized, and injunctive relief.
(c) Bureau. The Commission shall establish an Office of Digital Attention Markets to administer this Act.
(a) Civil Action. A State attorney general may bring a civil action in federal district court to enforce this Act on behalf of residents of the State.
(b) Notice. A State attorney general shall provide the Commission with 30 days’ notice before filing, unless immediate action is necessary to prevent substantial injury.
(c) Intervention. The Commission may intervene in any action brought under this section.
(a) Ordinary Violations. A person that violates this Act shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 per violation or $1,000,000 per day for a continuing violation, whichever is greater.
(b) Knowing or Systemic Violations by Covered Platforms. For a knowing, repeated, or systemic violation by a covered platform, the Commission may seek a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of:
1. $100,000,000;
2. 4 percent of the covered platform’s annual covered digital attention revenue in the United States for the preceding fiscal year.
(c) Aggravating Factors. In determining penalty amount, a court shall consider:
1. size and revenue of the defendant;
2. number of users affected;
3. duration of violation;
4. degree of knowledge or recklessness;
5. prior violations;
6. failure to correct known deficiencies;
7. cooperation with investigators;
8. impact on consumers, advertisers, creators, researchers, and competition;
9. whether the violation involved deception, fake engagement, synthetic impersonation, or false certification.
(d) No Penalty for Lawful Viewpoint. No penalty may be imposed based on the viewpoint, ideology, religious belief, political belief, artistic viewpoint, or editorial judgment expressed in lawful content.
A court may grant temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief; compliance orders; independent monitoring; disgorgement of unlawfully obtained monetization revenue where authorized; data preservation; audit requirements; and other equitable relief necessary to enforce this Act.
(a) Good-Faith Compliance. A covered platform or generative media service shall have a rebuttable safe harbor for a requirement of this Act if it demonstrates good-faith compliance with Commission rules, NIST standards adopted by rule, independent audit recommendations, and timely corrective action.
(b) No Safe Harbor for Knowing Deception. The safe harbor shall not apply to knowing false certification, knowing sale of fake engagement, knowing synthetic impersonation in commerce, retaliation against whistleblowers, or intentional obstruction of an audit.
(a) No Publisher-Speaker Liability. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to treat a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
(b) Platform Conduct. Liability under this Act attaches only to a person’s own conduct, including failure to make required disclosures, failure to maintain required compliance systems, deceptive commercial practices, fake engagement, false certification, unlawful retaliation, or violation of duties expressly imposed by this Act.
(c) Good Samaritan Protection Preserved. Nothing in this Act shall limit voluntary good-faith actions protected under section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934.
(a) Preemption. This Act preempts any State or local law that requires a covered platform to remove, retain, rank, downrank, promote, suppress, label as true or false, demonetize, or carry lawful content based on viewpoint, ideology, political position, religious belief, journalistic judgment, or government assessment of truthfulness.
(b) Savings. Nothing in this Act preempts State laws of general applicability concerning privacy, consumer protection, contracts, fraud, civil rights, employment, taxation, defamation, intellectual property, nonconsensual intimate imagery, child sexual abuse material, stalking, harassment, threats, election administration, or criminal law, to the extent such laws are consistent with the Constitution and section 230.
(c) Federal Floor. States may impose additional transparency, privacy, consumer protection, or safety obligations that are consistent with this Act and do not require viewpoint-based or truth-based treatment of lawful speech.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the remaining provisions to any person or circumstance shall not be affected.
(a) Initial Rules. The Commission shall promulgate initial rules under this Act not later than 18 months after enactment.
(b) Consultation. The Commission shall consult with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, Department of Justice, state attorneys general, civil-liberties organizations, journalists, researchers, platforms, creators, advertisers, small businesses, disability-rights organizations, and the public.
(c) First Amendment Review. Each final rule shall include a First Amendment impact statement explaining how the rule avoids viewpoint discrimination, content-based suppression, compelled editorial judgment, and undue burdens on protected speech.
(a) General Effective Date. This Act shall take effect 180 days after enactment.
(b) Covered Platform Duties. Titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII shall apply beginning 1 year after enactment, except that the Commission may extend compliance deadlines for specific technical requirements by not more than 1 additional year for good cause.
(c) Provenance Standards. Title V shall apply beginning 1 year after NIST identifies or develops applicable standards and the Commission adopts implementing rules.
(d) Assessment. Title XI shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date that is 1 year after enactment.
There are authorized to be appropriated:
1. to the Federal Trade Commission, $450,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
2. to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, $125,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
3. to the National Science Foundation, $250,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
4. to the Department of Education, $650,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
5. to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, $150,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
6. to the Public Interest Journalism Fund, $1,250,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036;
7. to Inspectors General of agencies carrying out this Act, $50,000,000 for each fiscal year 2027 through 2036.
The Act avoids direct censorship by saying, repeatedly and structurally, that the Government may not decide truth, require viewpoint balance, or order platforms to suppress lawful speech. This is essential because Section 230 protects platforms from being treated as publishers or speakers of third-party content, while allowing voluntary good-faith moderation. (Legal Information Institute [3])
The system-card model forces platforms to disclose meaningful information about recommender systems without forcing disclosure of source code, model weights, or trade secrets. This is meant to be a compliance-transparency mechanism, not government control over ranking.
The bill uses content-neutral triggers: high velocity, bulk forwarding, user failure to open content, automation, and provenance absence. It does not say “this is inflammatory” or “this is misinformation.” That keeps the provision closer to platform design regulation than speech regulation.
The Act leans on technical provenance, synthetic-media labeling, and preservation of credentials. NIST’s synthetic-content work already frames provenance, watermarking, labeling, detection, testing, and auditing as technical approaches to reducing risks from synthetic content. (NIST [4])
The bill does not ban rage-bait as speech. Instead, it attacks the monetization channels where they are deceptive or manipulative: fake engagement, hidden sponsorship, bot payouts, synthetic impersonation, and monetization systems that knowingly reward deceptive amplification. This approach resembles existing consumer-protection logic, including the FTC’s final rule against fake reviews and testimonials, which also targets AI-generated fake indicators and allows civil penalties. (Federal Trade Commission [5])
The journalism title has a heavy editorial firewall. Grants are based on objective civic-information needs, not ideology. The Government cannot tell a newsroom what to publish, whom to criticize, or what line to take. No editorial control, coercion, or viewpoint conditions are authorized.
| Issue | Risk | Why | Drafting Protection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform content curation | High if direct | Supreme Court treats curated feeds and ranking as expressive activity. | No duty to carry, remove, demote, rank, or balance speech. |
| Algorithmic transparency | Medium | Could become burdensome or reveal editorial judgment/trade secrets. | High-level system cards, trade-secret protections, no source-code mandate. |
| Sharing friction | Medium | Could be attacked as burdening redistribution. | Objective, content-neutral triggers; user may proceed; no truth label. |
| Synthetic media labels | Medium | Compelled disclosure risk. | Limited to factual creation-method disclosure, strongest in paid/monetized/commercial/high-distribution contexts. |
| News/opinion/satire labels | Medium to high if mandatory | Government classification of journalism is dangerous. | Voluntary labels except paid/sponsored/synthetic contexts. |
| Public journalism grants | Medium | Government funding of press can become viewpoint leverage. | Independent board, objective criteria, explicit editorial firewall. |
| Platform assessment fee | Medium | Targeting expressive businesses can draw First Amendment challenge. | Revenue-based, content-neutral, viewpoint-neutral, tied to regulatory and public-resilience costs. |
| Research access | Medium | Privacy, trade secrets, and editorial concerns. | Secure data rooms, data minimization, no viewpoint database. |
| Agency-platform communications | Low to protective | Addresses jawboning risk. | Written communications, public logs, anti-coercion rule. |
These are model estimates, not a CBO score.
| Window | Estimated Federal Outlays | Primary Cost Drivers |
|---|---|---|
| 1 year | $2.9 billion | FTC staffing, NIST standards, education grants, journalism fund startup |
| 5 years | $14.4 billion | Grants, researcher access, audits oversight, public-interest journalism |
| 10 years | $28.8 billion | Full program authorization |
| 30 years | $86.4 billion | Continuation with flat nominal funding |
The Digital Information Resilience Assessment could offset a substantial portion or all of the program cost depending on covered-platform revenue. The rate is deliberately modest, but because the base is large-platform digital attention revenue, it turns information hygiene into a real enterprise compliance cost rather than a purely voluntary corporate-responsibility statement.
FTC establishes Office of Digital Attention Markets. NIST begins provenance standards process. Education Department drafts media-literacy grant framework. Agencies prepare speech-communication log procedures.
FTC issues proposed rules on platform designation, system cards, transparency reports, sharing friction, monetization integrity, and audit standards. NIST convenes standards bodies and civil-society experts.
Covered platforms register. Platforms appoint compliance officers. Initial user-control and transparency architecture begins. Public Interest Journalism Board nominations proceed.
First system cards published. Sharing friction active for read-before-share and high-velocity triggers. First monetization risk assessments completed. Research access pilots open.
Full audit cycle. Public reports mature. Media-literacy grants scale nationally. Journalism payroll credit and local reporting grants begin measurable civic-information impact review.
Congress receives formal reauthorization and constitutional-performance reports. FTC recommends amendments based on litigation outcomes, technology change, and audit findings.
Consistency: The bill uses one unified framework: covered platforms, recommender transparency, sharing friction, provenance, monetization integrity, research access, media literacy, and journalism support.
Authority: Strongest bases are Commerce Clause, taxing power, Spending Clause, FTC consumer-protection authority, and NIST standards authority.
Constitutional risk: The draft avoids direct speech suppression, viewpoint discrimination, compelled truth labels, press licensing, and platform must-carry duties. Highest-risk pieces are the assessment fee, synthetic labeling, and any future rulemaking that becomes too content-specific.
Enforceability: FTC, state attorneys general, independent audits, executive certifications, civil penalties, corrective action plans, and monitors give the bill teeth.
Fiscal assumptions: Program costs are substantial, likely around $2.9 billion annually in the model authorization. Revenue offset depends on final platform-revenue base.
Implementation risk: Agencies will need technical staff, privacy-protective research systems, and careful rulemaking. Platforms will fight this with constitutional litigation, preemption arguments, trade-secret arguments, and “burdensome compliance” claims.
[1] 22-277 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (07/01/2024): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
[2] A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority | Federal Trade Commission: https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/mission/enforcement-authority
[3] 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
[4] Reducing Risks Posed by Synthetic Content An Overview of Technical Approaches to Digital Content Transparency | NIST: https://www.nist.gov/publications/reducing-risks-posed-synthetic-content-overview-technical-approaches-digital-content
[5] Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning ...: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials
