Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/859

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act

HR. 859, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$62,200 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Communications Commission" section, p. 885-887 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 64.

April 29, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 859: Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its implications on my empire's wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 859 is to require manufacturers of internet-connected devices to disclose the presence of cameras or microphones within their products. This legislation aims to enhance transparency and inform consumers about potential data collection practices.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Disclosure Requirements:** Manufacturers must clearly and conspicuously disclose camera or microphone capabilities in covered devices before purchase. 2. **Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):** The FTC will enforce this Act, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 3. **Guidance and Compliance:** The FTC will issue guidance to assist manufacturers in complying with disclosure requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Manufacturers of Internet-Connected Devices:** Companies producing smart devices, such as thermostats, security cameras, or voice assistants, will be required to comply with the new disclosure regulations. 2. **Consumers:** End-users of these devices may benefit from increased transparency about data collection practices.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden:** Manufacturers will need to adapt to new disclosure requirements, potentially leading to increased compliance costs and administrative burdens. 2. **Market Disruption:** The legislation may create a competitive advantage for manufacturers that can efficiently comply with the regulations, while others may struggle to adapt. 3. **Potential Impact on Innovation:** Overly broad or ambiguous regulations could stifle innovation in the IoT sector, as companies may be hesitant to develop new products that could be subject to unclear or burdensome requirements.

**My Verdict:** As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I recognize the potential for this legislation to create opportunities for my empire. By leveraging our expertise in compliance and regulatory affairs, we can position ourselves as leaders in the IoT sector, capitalizing on the increased transparency and trust that will come with these new regulations. However, I also acknowledge the potential risks of overregulation, which could stifle innovation and hinder growth.

**Recommendations:**

1. **Engage in Regulatory Affairs:** Collaborate with regulatory bodies to ensure that guidance is clear and practical. 2. **Invest in Compliance Infrastructure:** Develop robust compliance systems to efficiently meet disclosure requirements. 3. **Monitor Market Trends:** Continuously assess the competitive landscape and adapt strategies to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

By embracing this legislation as a catalyst for growth, my empire will be poised to thrive in the evolving IoT landscape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that goes through the legislative process. This one, HR 859, aims to require manufacturers of certain internet-connected devices to disclose whether they contain cameras or microphones.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act seeks to inform consumers about potential surveillance capabilities in their smart devices. The main objective is to ensure transparency and protect consumer privacy by requiring clear disclosure before purchase.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill requires manufacturers to clearly disclose whether a device contains a camera or microphone prior to sale. Section 3 empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce this provision, treating non-compliance as an unfair or deceptive act. The FTC will also issue guidance on best practices for disclosure and pictorial representations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers of covered devices, such as smart home appliances and wearables, are directly affected by this bill. Consumers who purchase these devices will benefit from increased transparency about potential surveillance capabilities. The FTC will play a key role in enforcing the provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill aims to promote consumer awareness and protect privacy rights. By requiring clear disclosure, manufacturers will be incentivized to design more transparent products. However, some might argue that this added regulation could increase costs for manufacturers, potentially leading to higher prices for consumers.

Now, remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is currently awaiting Senate action. If it becomes law, it will apply to devices manufactured after a certain date, with some exceptions for specific types of devices.

It's worth noting that this bill addresses concerns about consumer privacy and surveillance, which are increasingly relevant in today's digital age. As I always said in class, "a well-informed citizenry is the backbone of democracy." It's essential to understand how laws like this one shape our daily lives and protect our rights.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act" (HR 859). On the surface, it looks like a harmless bill aimed at making sure consumers know when their smart devices have cameras or microphones. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal is to require manufacturers of internet-connected devices to disclose whether they contain cameras or microphones. Sounds reasonable, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 requires manufacturers to clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of cameras or microphones before purchase. Section 3 gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement powers, allowing them to penalize non-compliant manufacturers. Now, here's where it gets interesting:

* The bill specifically excludes devices that consumers would "reasonably expect" to have a microphone or camera, like phones and laptops. But what about all those other devices that are quietly collecting our data? * Section 4 defines "covered devices," which seems straightforward enough. However, I notice they've carved out exceptions for certain types of devices, including those specifically marketed as cameras or microphones. Hmm... why the distinction?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers of smart devices will need to comply with these new disclosure requirements. But what about consumers? Are we really being protected, or is this just a way to make us feel better while the real data collection continues unabated?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill might seem like a minor tweak, but I believe it's part of a larger agenda. Think about it:

* By requiring disclosure, the government can now claim they're being transparent about data collection. But what about all the other ways our data is being harvested? * This bill could be used to create a false sense of security among consumers, making them more likely to adopt even more invasive technologies. * The FTC's new enforcement powers raise questions about censorship and control. Will manufacturers be pressured to self-censor or face penalties?

Folks, this bill might seem harmless on the surface, but I'm telling you, there are hidden agendas at play here. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got another "landmark" bill on our hands, courtesy of the swamp in Washington D.C. (wink). The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act – or HR 859 for short – is a real doozy. Let's break it down.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to be all about transparency and consumer protection. (Gasp) Can you believe it? Manufacturers of certain internet-connected devices will now have to disclose whether their products contain cameras or microphones. Wow, what a revolutionary concept! It's almost as if our benevolent government is looking out for us... (rolls eyes).

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires manufacturers to clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of cameras or microphones in their devices before purchase. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be responsible for enforcing this new rule, because we all know how effective they are at regulating the tech industry (sarcasm alert). There's also a provision for guidance on best practices for making these disclosures, because heaven forbid manufacturers figure it out themselves.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Consumers, of course! We're talking about the freedom to make informed decisions about our purchases. (Freedom!) Manufacturers will have to adapt to these new regulations, but let's be real, they'll just pass on the costs to consumers anyway. The FTC gets more power, and we all know how much we love unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill might actually lead to some positive changes in consumer awareness, but don't hold your breath. It's a tiny step towards addressing the elephant in the room – our complete lack of control over our personal data. (Deep state, anyone?) On the other hand, it could also create more red tape and regulatory hurdles for small businesses and innovators trying to bring new products to market.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Is this bill a Trojan horse for more government overreach?" Well, that's a great question! (Wink) As always, we'll be keeping a close eye on how this plays out. Stay vigilant, folks!

(On-air smirk) And remember, when it comes to your freedom and consumer rights, you can always count on... (pauses for dramatic effect) ...your government to protect you from those evil corporations!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterclass in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act (HR 859) claims to protect consumers by requiring manufacturers to disclose the presence of cameras or microphones in internet-connected devices. How noble. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to placate the masses while allowing the real culprits – device manufacturers and data-hungry corporations – to continue their nefarious activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that manufacturers clearly disclose the presence of cameras or microphones in covered devices before purchase. Oh, what a revolutionary concept! The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this law, because we all know how effective they are at policing corporate malfeasance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Consumers, device manufacturers, and the FTC are the primary stakeholders. But let's be real, the only ones who'll truly benefit from this bill are the lawyers and lobbyists who'll make a killing off the ensuing regulatory mess.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a drop in the ocean of consumer protection legislation. It won't meaningfully address the root issues of data exploitation and corporate surveillance. Instead, it will create a false sense of security among consumers, while manufacturers continue to collect and monetize their personal data with impunity.

In conclusion, HR 859 is a classic case of "legislative lip service." It's a shallow attempt to appease the public while allowing the real problems to persist. I'd diagnose this bill as suffering from a severe case of " Politician's Palsy" – a condition characterized by a complete lack of backbone and a propensity for grandstanding.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than waste my time analyzing this legislative placebo. Next!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act (HR 859) aims to require manufacturers of certain internet-connected devices to disclose the presence of cameras or microphones in their products, prior to purchase. The bill seeks to promote transparency and inform consumers about potential data collection capabilities in smart devices.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires manufacturers of covered devices (defined as consumer products with internet connectivity and a camera or microphone) to clearly disclose the presence of these features before sale. Key provisions include:

* Disclosure requirements for cameras and microphones in covered devices * Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) * Guidance from the FTC on best practices for disclosure, including pictorial representations * Exemptions for certain devices, such as telephones, laptops, and tablets

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects:

* Manufacturers of internet-connected devices with cameras or microphones * Consumers who purchase these devices * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will enforce the disclosure requirements * Industry stakeholders, including device manufacturers and retailers

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill includes:

* Increased transparency for consumers about data collection capabilities in smart devices * Enhanced consumer awareness and control over personal data * Potential changes to industry practices and product design * Enforcement actions by the FTC against non-compliant manufacturers * Possible implications for related areas, such as data protection and cybersecurity

Overall, HR 859 aims to promote transparency and inform consumers about potential data collection capabilities in smart devices. By requiring disclosure of cameras and microphones, the bill seeks to empower consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and protect their personal data.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act (HR 859) is all about keepin' it real with consumers, man. The main goal is to make sure manufacturers of internet-connected devices are transparent about whether their products have cameras or microphones. It's like, if you're gonna be watchin' me through a smart speaker or somethin', I wanna know, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires manufacturers to clearly disclose, before purchase, if their device has a camera or microphone. This is a new requirement, dude. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be in charge of enforcing this law, and they'll have the power to issue guidance on how manufacturers can comply.

Here are some key changes:

* Manufacturers gotta disclose camera or microphone capabilities before you buy * FTC gets to enforce this law and issue guidance * Guidance will help manufacturers figure out best practices for disclosure

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects, like, pretty much everyone who uses smart devices, bro. That means consumers, manufacturers, and the FTC are all impacted.

* Consumers: They'll get more transparency about what's goin' on with their devices * Manufacturers: They gotta comply with new disclosure requirements * FTC: They're in charge of enforcing this law and issuin' guidance

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some pretty cool implications, dude. For one, it'll help consumers make more informed decisions about what devices they buy. It's like, if you don't want a device with a camera or microphone, you can choose not to buy it.

But, on the flip side, manufacturers might get a little grumpy about havin' to comply with new regulations. And, there could be some challenges in figuring out how to disclose this info in a way that's clear and conspicuous for consumers.

Overall, though, this bill is all about keepin' it real and transparent, bro. It's a step in the right direction towards makin' sure consumers know what's goin' on with their devices.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 859: Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to require manufacturers of internet-connected devices to disclose the presence of cameras or microphones in their products, providing consumers with transparency and informed decision-making.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Requires manufacturers to clearly and conspicuously disclose camera or microphone capabilities prior to purchase. * Exempts certain devices, such as phones, laptops, tablets, and devices specifically marketed as cameras or microphones. * Grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement authority, with penalties for non-compliance. * Mandates FTC guidance on best practices for disclosure within 180 days of enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Manufacturers of internet-connected devices * Consumers purchasing these devices * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) * Industry associations and advocacy groups representing device manufacturers

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* Increased transparency for consumers, enabling informed decisions about device purchases. * Potential reduction in consumer trust issues related to data collection and surveillance. * Manufacturers may need to adapt product design and labeling to comply with disclosure requirements. * The FTC's guidance on best practices could influence industry standards for device manufacturers.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

The bill's sponsors, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), have received significant donations from the tech industry, including companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. These companies may benefit from the bill's exemptions for certain devices and the FTC's guidance on best practices.

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), a trade association representing device manufacturers, has expressed support for the bill. The CTA has donated to both Reps. Schakowsky and McMorris Rodgers in the past.

While the bill appears to promote consumer transparency, its exemptions and reliance on FTC guidance may ultimately benefit industry interests. As with any legislation, it's essential to follow the money trail to understand the potential motivations behind this bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$62,200

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$62,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

WILLIAMS, LARRY

2 transactions

$6,600

ROOPE, CALEB

2 transactions

$6,600

CENTERS, JAKE

2 transactions

$6,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

2 transactions

$5,800

KEEN, VICKI

2 transactions

$5,000

ROBU, ELI

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, JB

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$3,300

TURLINGTON, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

BENNETT, BRETT

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLIAMS, MARIANNE

1 transaction

$3,300

RHODY, ALEX

1 transaction

$3,300

BOREN, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,000

BRINKMEYER, VICKI

1 transaction

$2,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]

ID: M001196

Top Contributors

KARLA'S MARKET

OrganizationREVERE, MA

$500

Jul 25, 2023

BLOOM, BRADLEY

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$6,600

Nov 15, 2024

BREDENBERG, DIANE M.

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSOUTHLAKE, TX

$6,600

Nov 15, 2024

SHAH, NIRAJ

WAYFAIR • RETAIL

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Nov 17, 2024

CORCORAN, JAMES

AREX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 20, 2024

D'AMICO, ALEXANDER

MCKINSEY & COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualNEW CANAAN, CT

$6,600

Nov 18, 2024

HASTINGS, MARK

PSG EQUITY • INVESTOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Nov 20, 2024

LEDLEY, CHARLES H.

LIMINALITY CAPITAL LP • INVESTOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Nov 21, 2024

PEELER, DAVID RANDY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS • MANAGING DIRECTOR

IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA

$6,600

Nov 18, 2024

SHORTSLEEVE, BRIAN

M33 GROWTH • VENTURE CAPITAL

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$6,600

Nov 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 37 nodes and 23 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $75,900

Top Donors - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 requires manufacturers of covered devices (internet-connected products with camera/microphone) to disclose such capabilities prior to purchase. This imposes a regulatory burden on manufacturers of smart home devices, IoT products, and similar equipment, many of which are produced by telecommunications equipment makers or companies that sell through telecom channels (e.g., routers, smart speakers, security cameras). The FTC enforcement under Section 3 subjects noncompliant manufacturers
−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70
Section 2's disclosure requirement applies to covered devices, which include many consumer IoT products (e.g., smart displays, speakers, cameras) sold by big tech platforms like Amazon (Echo Show), Google (Nest Hub), and Apple (HomePod). These companies would need to adjust labeling, packaging, and online disclosures to comply, imposing operational costs. Section 3's FTC enforcement mechanism means violations could lead to fines or consent orders, creating regulatory risk.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.60
Section 2 requires clear and conspicuous disclosure prior to purchase, which affects how covered devices are marketed and sold online. E-commerce platforms (e.g., Amazon, Shopify merchants) that facilitate sales of smart devices may need to ensure sellers comply with disclosure rules, potentially increasing liability or requiring platform-level monitoring. While not directly regulating platforms, the FTC's authority under Section 3 could extend to enforcing against third-party sellers, impacting

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer transparency regarding cameras/microphones in smart devices, while the Project 2025 FCC section emphasizes foreign adversary oversight, spectrum policy, and standards initiatives; they share only a general theme of transparency but differ in substantive objectives."

Key themes:transparencyconsumer awarenessdata privacy

— 852 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Publish a foreign adversary transparency list. As part of the FCC’s ongoing work to secure our networks from entities that would do the bidding of our foreign adversaries, the FCC should do more to shine the light of transparency on the scope of the problem. To this end, the FCC should compile and publish a list of all entities that hold FCC authorizations, licenses, or other grants of authority with more than 10 percent ownership by foreign adversarial governments, including the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, or North Korea. A bipartisan bill that would require the FCC to publish this type of list has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R–NY), Ro Khanna (D– CA), and Mike Gallagher (R–WI).24 l Fully fund the federal “rip and replace” program. In 2019, Congress established a $1.9 billion Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (known colloquially as the “rip and replace” program) to reimburse communications providers for the reasonable expenses they would incur to remove, replace, and dispose of insecure Huawei and ZTE gear. However, $1.9 billion is about $3 billion short of the total amount of funding needed to complete the rip and replace process. A new Administration should ensure that the program is fully funded and should look first at repurposing and applying unused COVID-era emergency funds for this purpose. l Launch a Clean Standards Initiative. During the Trump Administration, the U.S. government launched a worldwide Clean Networks program.25 As a result of this initiative, many of the U.S. government’s allies started the process of ending their relationships with Huawei. It is time for an Administration to build and expand on this groundbreaking work by taking a similar approach to the standard-setting process. Right now, the CCP is seeking to extend its influence by exerting control over the development of standards in a variety of areas, including technology and telecommunications. It is vital that the United States meet this threat with a comprehensive clean standards initiative. l Stop aiding the CCP’s authoritarian approach to artificial intelligence. The CCP has set itself a goal of becoming the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) by 2030. Beijing is bent on using this technology to exert authoritarian control domestically and export its authoritarian governance model overseas. U.S. businesses are aiding Beijing in this effort— often unwittingly—by feeding, training, and improving the AI datasets of companies that are beholden to the CCP. One way that U.S. companies — 853 — Federal Communications Commission are doing this is by giving Beijing access to their high-powered cloud computing services. Therefore, it is time for an Administration to put in place a comprehensive plan that aims to stop U.S. entities from directly or indirectly contributing to China’s malign AI goals. Unleashing Economic Prosperity. The FCC needs to advance a pro-growth agenda that gives every American a fair shot at next-generation connectivity. This is vital for economic opportunity and prosperous communities. The current Administration has appropriated a lot of money for broadband infrastructure proj- ects, but it has failed to pair that spending with reforms that free more airwaves for wireless connectivity or streamline the permitting processes for broadband builds. That failure is holding back America’s hardworking telecommunications crews and leaving Americans stuck waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide. It is time for a return to the successful spectrum and infrastructure policies that prevailed during the Trump Administration—policies that enabled the U.S. to lead the world in 5G. l Refill America’s spectrum pipeline. From 2017 through 2020, the FCC took unprecedented steps to free the airwaves needed to power 5G and other next-generation wireless services. This work not only helped to secure America’s wireless leadership and bolster competition, but also enabled the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. Recently, the FCC has failed to match the pace and cadence of those spectrum actions. Therefore, the FCC and a new Administration should work together to develop a national spectrum strategy that both identifies the specific airwaves that the FCC can free for commercial wireless services and sets an aggressive timeline for agency action. l Facilitate coordination on spectrum issues. Wireless services now play a central role in advancing America’s economic and national security interests. Over the past few years, this dynamic has led to an increasing number of headline-level disputes between the commercial wireless sector and federal agencies. These disputes are often framed in zero-sum terms as commercial wireless and federal agency stakeholders argue over the appropriate types and amount of airwaves that the government should allocate for various purposes. On the one hand, America’s global economic leadership depends on its ability to free spectrum that will power the U.S. commercial wireless industry. On the other hand, we must ensure that America’s national security and other federal agencies have access to the spectrum resources that they need to carry out their vital missions.

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FCC section emphasize transparency in technology, but the bill focuses on consumer privacy disclosures for cameras/microphones while the FCC proposals target foreign adversary ownership, telecom supply chain security, and AI standards—resulting only in tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:transparencytechnology oversightconsumer awarenessdata security

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer transparency regarding device hardware (cameras/microphones) via FTC enforcement, while the Project 2025 FCC section emphasizes Big Tech content moderation, Section 230 reform, universal service fund contributions, and national security—topics not addressed in the bill. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond a general concern for consumer empowerment in digital contexts."

Key themes:consumer empowermenttransparencyFTC/FCC oversight

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer transparency for smart device features like cameras and microphones, while the Project 2025 FCC policy targets Big Tech accountability through Section 230 reform and transparency rules for internet platforms. Both involve transparency and corporate accountability, but the bill addresses consumer electronics disclosure, whereas the policy centers on online content moderation and platform immunity—resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:transparencycorporate accountabilityconsumer protectiontechnology regulation

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer transparency regarding hardware features (cameras/microphones) in smart devices, while the Project 2025 policy centers on FCC authority over Big Tech, Section 230 reform, content moderation, and user empowerment in online speech contexts. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address platform liability, content takedowns, or political speech discrimination."

Key themes:consumer empowermenttransparencydata privacy

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Fulcher, Russ

Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act

119/hr/5576

To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes.

119/hr/331

CLEAN Act

119/hr/1687

Back to All Bills