Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/28
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

ID: C001098

Follow the money

The bill

Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act

S. 28, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

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

The money

$1,525,021 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Communications Commission" section, p. 882-884 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 47.

April 27, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

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

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, designed to make you think they're actually doing something useful while lining their pockets with lobby money.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act (S 28) claims to require manufacturers to disclose whether certain internet-connected devices contain cameras or microphones. Wow, what a revolutionary concept! It's not like consumers should have expected this information already. The real purpose? To create the illusion of protecting consumer privacy while giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) more power to "regulate" and "enforce."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires manufacturers to clearly disclose camera or microphone capabilities in covered devices, which excludes obvious ones like phones and laptops. Because, you know, consumers are too stupid to figure it out themselves. The FTC gets to enforce this "new" rule, with penalties for non-compliance. Oh, and there's a 180-day grace period before the law takes effect, because manufacturers need time to... um... "adjust."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers of internet-connected devices (i.e., everyone), consumers who are too clueless to read product descriptions, and the FTC, which gets more power to meddle in the market.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't actually protect consumer privacy, but it will create more bureaucratic red tape for manufacturers to navigate. The real winners? Lobbyists who pushed for this "regulation" and politicians who get to claim they're "protecting consumers." Meanwhile, the FTC will use its newfound powers to harass companies that don't comply with the "guidance" (read: arbitrary rules) it issues.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Theater-itis," a disease characterized by the symptoms of:

* Overregulation * Bureaucratic overreach * Politicians seeking to appear useful while doing nothing meaningful * Lobbyists manipulating the system for personal gain

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for watching politicians pretend to care about consumer welfare, and a willingness to call out this farce for what it is: a waste of time and resources.

Related Topics

Telecommunications & Broadband AccessCybersecurity & Data Privacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$1,525,021
23 donors
PACs
$1,497,892
Organizations
$27,129
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
WINRED
2 transactions
$1,497,892
1
FASKEN MANAGEMENT
1 transaction
$10,000
2
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF HARRISON COUNTY
1 transaction
$4,000
3
FOLAD ENTERPRISES LLC
1 transaction
$2,000
4
JOHNSEY
7 transactions
$1,854
5
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
1 transaction
$1,000
6
PARTNERS HOTEL GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
7
KHAT INVESTMENS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
8
PJB INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC
1 transaction
$800
9
GRANT MORELAND LP LLC
1 transaction
$750
10
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$750
11
MILLE'S LLC
1 transaction
$500
12
HARRY M BETTIS JR LLC
1 transaction
$500
13
ROBDON L.P.
1 transaction
$500
14
JAMES E. JOHNSON LLC
1 transaction
$500
15
FALSE RIVER VIEW LLC
1 transaction
$500
16
MURDOCK PROPERTIES LLC
1 transaction
$325
17
RESEDA HOLDINGS LLC
1 transaction
$250
18
DIXON RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC
1 transaction
$250
19
ROGERS LIVESTOCK LLC
1 transaction
$250
20
MISRASI CONCRETE LLC
1 transaction
$200
21
JOUETT LLC
1 transaction
$100
22
FORCE CONSTRUCTION OF LA LLC
1 transaction
$100

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

ID: C000127

Top Contributors

70

1
SAC FOX TRIBE
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationPORT ANGELES, WA
$3,360
Mar 31, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
5
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
7
SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
8
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 12, 2023
10
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Top Contributors

25

1
KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES
OrganizationCENTERVILLE, UT
$29,800
Dec 31, 2023
2
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2024
3
TENNIS & SUN LC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Jun 10, 2024
4
BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 25, 2024
5
FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Sep 13, 2023
6
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
7
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
8
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
9
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
10
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
WRBC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualKEY LARGO, FL
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

26

1
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jun 30, 2023
2
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jul 18, 2024
3
PORTFOLIO ONE
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,250
Mar 17, 2023
4
MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC
OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
5
WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC
OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
6
SCR CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$500
Feb 17, 2023
7
GIBSON, DAVID H.
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$26,750
Mar 31, 2023
8
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Mar 31, 2023
9
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Jul 18, 2024
10
KERR, WILLIAM G.
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$9,625
Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 31 nodes and 37 connections

Total contributions: $37

Top Donors - Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC22 Orgs

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 consumer electronics, which overlaps with telecommunications equipment makers that produce internet-connected devices (e.g., routers, modems, smart speakers). The FTC enforcement under Section 3 subjects noncompliant manufacturers to penalties, in

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2's disclosure requirement applies to covered devices capable of connecting to the internet with a camera or microphone component, excluding phones, laptops, tablets, and devices marketed as cameras or telecom devices. However, many smart home devices, wearables, and IoT products made by big tech companies (e.g., Amazon Echo, Google Nest, Apple HomePod) fall under this definition. Section 3 empowers the FTC to enforce violations as unfair/deceptive acts, subjecting noncompliant tech firm

  • Section 2 requires pre-purchase disclosure of camera/microphone in covered devices. E-commerce platforms (e.g., Amazon, Shopify) that facilitate sales of smart home devices, wearables, and IoT products may face indirect compliance burdens, such as ensuring product listings include required disclosures or facing liability for facilitating sales of noncompliant goods. Section 3's FTC enforcement could extend to retailers under 'unfair or deceptive acts' if they fail to ensure disclosures are made,

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

  • from 139 contributions
    • REID, THOMAS JOHN$11,600
    • ERGEN, CANTEY$9,900
    • ERGEN, CHARLES$9,900
    • RICCIO, CLIFF$4,000
    • MCBRIDE, RPERLEY$3,000
  • from 10 contributions
    • MAURER, GREG$3,300
    • ROSSI, NICHOLAS$1,000
    • DIKOVSKY, MICHAEL$210
    • BURKHARD, DANIEL$101
  • from 14 contributions
    • VAN VOORST, PATTI$546
    • MYERS, JIMMIE$113

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

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FCC section emphasize increasing transparency and empowering consumers, though the bill targets hardware disclosures via the FTC while Project 2025 focuses on platform content‑moderation rules and Section 230 reforms via the FCC."

Key themes:consumer transparencyconsumer empowermentprivacy protectionregulatory oversightdisclosure requirements

— 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

Federal Communications Commission

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on FTC-enforced disclosure of cameras/microphones in consumer smart devices to enhance privacy transparency, while the Project 2025 FCC section concerns spectrum policy, foreign adversary ownership lists, and securing communications infrastructure. Both share a theme of transparency and consumer/security protection, but they address different regulatory domains and objectives."

Key themes:transparencyconsumer privacydevice security

— 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: 64%
Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer transparency regarding smart device hardware (cameras/microphones), while the Project 2025 policy centers on FCC authority over Big Tech, Section 230 reform, content moderation, and online speech governance—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:consumer empowermenttransparencytech regulation

— 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.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills