Regulon — US-S-3308 · US S 3308 (AI Civil Rights Act)

WHAT THIS BILL REGULATES · 8 REQUIREMENT TYPES

How Is This Bill Enforced

Enforcement Authority

Federal Trade Commission enforces as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act. State attorneys general and State data protection authorities may bring parens patriae civil actions in federal court on behalf of state residents, with prior written notice to the FTC. Private right of action available to any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation; plaintiff must notify the FTC and state attorney general before filing and allow 60 days for response. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint action waivers are unenforceable.

Private Right of Action

may bring parens patriae civil actions in federal court on behalf of state residents, with prior written notice to the FTC.

Penalties

Private plaintiffs may recover treble damages or $15,000 per violation (whichever is greater), nominal damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and equitable or declaratory relief. State AG actions may obtain civil penalties of $15,000 per violation or 4% of defendant's average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years (whichever is greater), plus damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

Verbatim statutory text on the left; plain-language analysis and a per-section checklist on the right. Numbered markers cross-link to the matching checklist row.

Statutory Text

Analysis & Obligations

Sec. 101

Discrimination

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 1 A developer or deployer shall not offer, license, promote, sell, or use a covered algorithm in a manner that— (1) causes or contributes to a disparate impact in a manner that prevents; (2) otherwise discriminates in a manner that prevents; or (3) otherwise makes unavailable, the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, related to a consequential action, on the basis of a protected characteristic.

(b) This section shall not apply to— (1) the offer, licensing, or use of a covered algorithm for the sole purpose of— (A) a developer's or deployer's self-testing (or auditing by an independent auditor at a developer's or deployer's request) to identify, prevent, or mitigate discrimination, or otherwise to ensure compliance with obligations, under Federal law; (B) expanding an applicant, participant, or customer pool to raise the likelihood of increasing diversity or redressing historic discrimination; or (C) conducting— (i) good faith security research; or (ii) other research, if conducting the research is not part or all of a commercial act; or (2) any private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, as described in section 201(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a(e)).

Section 101 establishes the bill's core anti-discrimination prohibition. Developers and deployers are prohibited from offering, licensing, promoting, selling, or using a covered algorithm in a manner that causes or contributes to disparate impact, otherwise discriminates, or makes unavailable the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or opportunities related to a consequential action on the basis of a protected characteristic. The prohibition is expansive — it covers both disparate impact and intentional discrimination, and it reaches both the supply side (offering/licensing) and the use side (deploying).

Exceptions are carved out for self-testing to identify or mitigate discrimination, expanding diversity in applicant pools, good-faith security research, noncommercial research, and private clubs not open to the public.

Compliance actions 1 item

Developers and deployers must not offer, license, promote, sell, or use a covered algorithm in a manner that causes or contributes to disparate impact, otherwise discriminates, or makes unavailable the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or opportunities related to a consequential action on the basis of a protected characteristic. Exceptions apply for self-testing to mitigate discrimination, diversity expansion, and noncommercial research.

H-02.11

Sec. 102

Pre-deployment evaluations and post-deployment impact assessments

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1) 2 Prior to deploying, licensing, or offering a covered algorithm (including deploying a material change to a previously deployed covered algorithm or a material change made prior to deployment) for a consequential action, a developer or deployer shall conduct a pre-deployment evaluation in accordance with the following: (1) PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.— (A) PLAUSIBILITY OF HARM.— (i) DEVELOPERS.—The developer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any expected use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (ii) DEPLOYERS.—The deployer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any intended use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (B) RESULTS.—Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, the developer or deployer shall— (i) in the event that a harm is not plausible, record a finding of no plausible harm, including a description of the developer's expected use or the deployer's intended use of the covered algorithm, how the preliminary evaluation was conducted, and an explanation for the finding, and submit such record to the Commission; and (ii) in the event that a harm is plausible, conduct a full pre-deployment evaluation as described in paragraph (2).

(a)(2)(A) 3 FOR DEVELOPERS.— (i) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR EVALUATION.—If a developer determines a harm is plausible during the preliminary evaluation described in paragraph (1), the developer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a pre-deployment evaluation. (ii) PRE-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation required under clause (i) shall include a detailed review and description, sufficient for an individual having ordinary skill in the art to understand the functioning, risks, uses, benefits, limitations, and other pertinent attributes of the covered algorithm, including— (I) the covered algorithm's design and methodology... (II) how the covered algorithm was created, trained, and tested... (III) the potential for the covered algorithm to produce a harm or to have a disparate impact... (IV) alternative practices and recommendations to prevent or mitigate harm... (V) any other information the Commission deems pertinent... (iii) REPORT.—The independent auditor shall submit to the developer a report on the evaluation conducted under this subparagraph, including the findings and recommendations of such independent auditor.

(a)(2)(B) 3 FOR DEPLOYERS.— (i) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR EVALUATION.—If a deployer determines a harm is plausible during the preliminary evaluation described in paragraph (1), the deployer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a pre-deployment evaluation. (ii) PRE-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation required under clause (i) shall include a detailed review and description... including— (I) the manner in which the covered algorithm makes or contributes to a consequential action and the purpose for which the covered algorithm will be deployed; (II) the necessity and proportionality of the covered algorithm... (III) the inputs that the deployer plans to use... (IV) the outputs the covered algorithm is expected to produce... (V) a description of any additional testing or training completed by the deployer... (VI) a description of any consultation with relevant stakeholders... (VII) the potential for the covered algorithm to produce a harm or to have a disparate impact... (VIII) alternative practices and recommendations to prevent or mitigate harm... (IX) any other information the Commission deems pertinent... (iii) REPORT.—The independent auditor shall submit to the deployer a report on the evaluation conducted under this subparagraph, including the findings and recommendations of such independent auditor.

(b) 4 After the deployment of a covered algorithm, a deployer shall, on an annual basis, conduct an impact assessment in accordance with the following: (1) PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—The deployer shall conduct a preliminary impact assessment of the covered algorithm to identify any harm that resulted from the covered algorithm during the reporting period and— (A) if no resulting harm is identified by such assessment, shall record a finding of no harm... and submit such finding to the Commission; and (B) if a resulting harm is identified by such assessment, shall conduct a full impact assessment as described in paragraph (2). (2) FULL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—In the event that the covered algorithm resulted in harm during the reporting period, the deployer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a full impact assessment with respect to the reporting period, including— (A) an assessment of the harm... (B) a description of the extent to which the covered algorithm produced a disparate impact... (C) a description of the types of data input... (D) whether and to what extent the covered algorithm produced the outputs it was expected to produce; (E) a detailed description of how the covered algorithm was used to make a consequential action; (F) any action taken to prevent or mitigate harms... (G) any other information the Commission deems pertinent...

(c) 5 A developer shall, on an annual basis, review each impact assessment summary submitted by a deployer of its covered algorithm under subsection (b)(3)(B) for the following purposes: (1) To assess how the deployer is using the covered algorithm... (2) To assess the type of data the deployer is inputting... (3) To assess whether the deployer is complying with any relevant contractual agreement... (4) To compare the covered algorithm's performance in real-world conditions versus pre-deployment testing... (5) To assess whether the covered algorithm is causing harm... (6) To assess whether the covered algorithm is causing, or is reasonably likely to be causing, a disparate impact... (7) To determine whether the covered algorithm needs modification. (8) To determine whether any other action is appropriate to ensure that the covered algorithm remains safe and effective. (9) To undertake any other assessment or responsive action the Commission deems pertinent...

(e) 6 REPORTING.—A developer or deployer that conducts a full pre-deployment evaluation, full impact assessment, or developer annual review of assessments shall— (A) not later than 30 days after completion, submit the evaluation, assessment, or review to the Commission; (B) upon request, make the evaluation, assessment, or review available to Congress; and (C) not later than 30 days after completion— (i) publish a summary of the evaluation, assessment, or review on the website of the developer or deployer in a manner that is easily accessible to individuals; and (ii) submit such summary to the Commission. (2) RETENTION.—A developer or deployer shall retain all evaluations, assessments, and reviews described in this section for a period of not fewer than 10 years.

Section 102 imposes a tiered evaluation framework on both developers and deployers. Before deploying, licensing, or offering a covered algorithm for a consequential action, each must conduct a preliminary evaluation of whether harm is plausible. If no harm is plausible, a finding is recorded and submitted to the FTC. If harm is plausible, a full pre-deployment evaluation by an independent auditor is required, covering design, methodology, training data, testing across protected characteristics, stakeholder consultation, potential disparate impact, and mitigation recommendations.

Post-deployment, deployers must conduct annual impact assessments. If harm occurred during the reporting period, a full independent-auditor assessment is required. Deployers must share assessment summaries with developers within 30 days. Developers must annually review all deployer assessment summaries to assess real-world performance, contractual compliance, ongoing harm, and whether modifications are needed. All full evaluations, assessments, and reviews must be submitted to the FTC within 30 days of completion, published in summary on the entity's website, and retained for at least 10 years. Trade secrets may be redacted; personal data must be redacted from public disclosures.

Compliance actions 5 items

Developers and deployers must conduct a preliminary evaluation of whether any expected or intended use of a covered algorithm may plausibly result in harm before deployment, licensing, or offering. If no harm is plausible, a documented finding must be recorded and submitted to the FTC. If harm is plausible, a full pre-deployment evaluation by an independent auditor is required.

H-02.1

Developers and deployers must, when harm is plausible, engage an independent auditor to conduct a full pre-deployment evaluation covering design, methodology, training data, testing across protected characteristics, stakeholder consultation, potential for disparate impact, and mitigation recommendations. The auditor must submit a report with findings and recommendations.

H-02.1

Deployers must conduct annual post-deployment impact assessments to identify any harm from the covered algorithm. If harm occurred, the deployer must engage an independent auditor for a full assessment covering actual harm, disparate impact analysis, data inputs, outputs, mitigation actions, and recommendations. Assessment summaries must be shared with the developer within 30 days.

H-02.8

Developers must annually review each deployer impact assessment summary to assess deployer usage, data inputs/outputs, contractual compliance, real-world performance versus testing, whether harm or disparate impact is occurring, and whether the algorithm needs modification.

H-02.8

Developers and deployers must submit all full pre-deployment evaluations, full impact assessments, and developer annual reviews to the FTC within 30 days of completion, make them available to Congress on request, publish a summary on their website, and retain all records for at least 10 years. Trade secrets may be redacted; personal data must be redacted from public disclosures.

R-02.1

Sec. 201

Covered algorithm standards

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1)–(7) 7 A developer or deployer shall do the following: (1) Take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate any harm identified by a pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b). (2) Take reasonable measures to ensure that an independent auditor has all necessary information to complete an accurate and effective pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b). (3) With respect to a covered algorithm, consult stakeholders, including any communities that will be impacted by the covered algorithm, regarding the development or deployment of the covered algorithm prior to the deploying, licensing, or offering the covered algorithm. (4) With respect to a covered algorithm, certify that, based on the results of a pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b)— (A) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in harm or disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities; (B) the benefits from the use of the covered algorithm to individuals affected by the covered algorithm likely outweigh the harms from the use of the covered algorithm to such individuals; and (C) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in a deceptive act or practice. (5) Ensure that any covered algorithm of the developer or deployer functions— (A) at a level that would be considered reasonable performance by an individual with ordinary skill in the art; and (B) in a manner that is consistent with its expected and publicly advertised performance, purpose, or use. (6) Ensure any data used in the design, development, deployment, or use of the covered algorithm is relevant and appropriate to the deployment context and the publicly advertised purpose or use. (7) Ensure use of the covered algorithm as intended is not likely to result in a violation of this Act.

(b) 8 It shall be unlawful for a developer or deployer to engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm of the developer or deployer.

(c) 9 DEVELOPERS.—It shall be unlawful for a developer to knowingly offer or license a covered algorithm for any consequential action other than those evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a). (2) DEPLOYERS.—It shall be unlawful for a deployer to knowingly use a covered algorithm for any consequential action other than a use evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a), unless the deployer agrees to assume the responsibilities of a developer required by this Act.

Section 201 imposes operational standards on developers and deployers. They must take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate identified harms, support independent auditors with necessary information, consult stakeholders before deployment, and certify that the algorithm is not likely to result in harm, disparate impact, or deceptive practices and that benefits outweigh harms. The algorithm must perform at a level consistent with its publicly advertised purpose, and all data used must be relevant and appropriate. Developers and deployers must ensure intended use is not likely to violate this Act.

Subsection (b) prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading advertising of a covered algorithm. Subsection (c) prohibits off-label use: developers may not knowingly offer a covered algorithm for consequential actions not evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation, and deployers may not knowingly use one for unevaluated actions unless they assume developer responsibilities.

Compliance actions 3 items

Developers and deployers must (1) take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate harms identified in evaluations and assessments, (2) ensure independent auditors have all necessary information, (3) consult impacted stakeholders before deployment, (4) certify that the algorithm is not likely to cause harm, disparate impact, or deceptive practices, (5) ensure the algorithm performs consistent with its advertised purpose, (6) ensure data used is relevant and appropriate, and (7) ensure intended use will not violate this Act.

S-01.1

Developers and deployers must not engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm.

CP-01

Developers must not knowingly offer or license a covered algorithm for any consequential action other than those evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation. Deployers must not knowingly use a covered algorithm for unevaluated consequential actions unless they assume full developer responsibilities.

S-01

Sec. 202

Relationships between developers and deployers

Developer

(a) 10 A developer shall do the following: (1) Upon the reasonable request of the deployer, make available to the deployer information necessary to demonstrate the compliance of the deployer with the requirements of this Act, including— (A) making available a report of the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or the annual review of assessments conducted by the developer under section 102(c); and (B) providing information necessary to enable the deployer to conduct and document a pre-deployment evaluation under section 102(a) or an impact assessment under section 102(b). (2) Either— (A) allow and cooperate with reasonable assessments conducted by the deployer or the deployer's designated independent auditor; or (B) arrange for an independent auditor to conduct an assessment of the developer's policies and practices in support of the obligations under this Act using an appropriate and accepted control standard or framework and assessment procedure for such assessments, and provide a report of such assessment to the deployer upon request.

(b) 11 A developer may offer or license a covered algorithm to a deployer pursuant to a written contract between the developer and deployer, provided that the contract— (A) clearly sets forth the data processing procedures of the developer with respect to any collection, processing, or transfer of data performed on behalf of the deployer; (B) clearly sets forth— (i) instructions for collecting, processing, transferring, or disposing of data by the developer or deployer in the context of the use of the covered algorithm; (ii) instructions for deploying the covered algorithm as intended; (iii) the nature and purpose of any collection, processing, or transferring of data; (iv) the type of data subject to such collection, processing, or transferring; (v) the duration of such processing of data; and (vi) the rights and obligations of both parties, including a method by which the developer shall notify the deployer of material changes to its covered algorithm; (C) shall not relieve a developer or deployer of any requirement or liability imposed on such developer or deployer under this Act; (D) prohibits both the developer and deployer from combining data received from or collected on behalf of the other party with data the developer or deployer received from or collected on behalf of another party; and (E) shall not prohibit a developer or deployer from raising concerns to any relevant enforcement agency with respect to the other party. (2) RETENTION OF CONTRACT.—Each developer shall retain for a period of 10 years a copy of each contract entered into with a deployer to which it provides requested products or services.

Section 202 structures the developer-deployer relationship through information-sharing obligations and mandatory contractual terms. Developers must make compliance information available to deployers on reasonable request, including pre-deployment evaluation reports, and must either allow deployer-conducted assessments or arrange for an independent auditor to assess the developer's practices and share results.

Written contracts between developers and deployers must specify data processing procedures, deployment instructions, data types and duration, both parties' rights and obligations, and a material-change notification method. Contracts may not relieve either party of statutory obligations, must prohibit cross-party data combination, and may not bar either party from raising concerns with enforcement agencies. Developers must retain contracts for 10 years.

Compliance actions 2 items

Developers must, upon deployer request, provide information necessary for deployer compliance, including pre-deployment evaluation reports and annual review results. Developers must either cooperate with deployer-conducted assessments or arrange an independent auditor assessment of the developer's practices and share the report.

G-01.3

Developers must include in written contracts with deployers: data processing procedures, deployment instructions, data types and processing duration, both parties' rights and obligations with a material-change notification method, a prohibition on cross-party data combination, and a prohibition on suppressing enforcement-agency complaints. Contracts may not relieve either party of statutory obligations. Developers must retain all contracts for 10 years.

G-01.3

Sec. 203

Human alternatives and other protections

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 12 RULEMAKING.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, specifying the circumstances and manner in which a deployer shall provide to an individual a means to opt-out of the use of a covered algorithm for a consequential action and to elect to have the consequential action concerning the individual undertaken by a human without the use of a covered algorithm. (2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In promulgating the regulations under paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider the following: (A) How to ensure that any notice or request from a deployer regarding the right to a human alternative is clear and conspicuous, in plain language, easy to execute, and at no cost to an individual...

(b) 13 A developer or deployer may not condition, effectively condition, attempt to condition, or attempt to effectively condition the exercise of any individual right under this Act or individual choice through— (1) the use of any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or materially misleading statement or representation; or (2) the design, modification, or manipulation of any user interface with the purpose or substantial effect of obscuring, subverting, or impairing a reasonable individual's autonomy, decision making, or choice to exercise any such right.

(c) 14 RULEMAKING.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, specifying the circumstances and manner in which a deployer shall provide to an individual a mechanism to appeal to a human a consequential action resulting from the deployer's use of a covered algorithm. (2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In promulgating the regulations under paragraph (1), the Commission shall do the following: (A) Ensure that the appeal mechanism is clear and conspicuous, in plain language, easy-to-execute, and at no cost to individuals. (B) Ensure that the appeal mechanism is proportionate to the consequential action. (C) Ensure that the appeal mechanism is reasonably accessible to individuals with disabilities, timely, usable, effective, and non-discriminatory. (D) Require, where appropriate, a mechanism for individuals to identify and correct any personal data used by the covered algorithm. (E) Specify training requirements for human reviewers with respect to a consequential action...

Section 203 directs the FTC to promulgate regulations within two years specifying when and how deployers must provide individuals a means to opt out of algorithmic consequential actions and elect a human alternative. The FTC must consider clarity, specificity of action types warranting alternatives, feasibility, and effects on third parties. A separate prohibition bars developers and deployers from conditioning individual rights through false statements or deceptive interface design (dark patterns). The FTC must also promulgate regulations for a right to appeal algorithmic decisions to a human reviewer, with considerations including accessibility, proportionality, data correction, and training requirements for reviewers.

Compliance actions 3 items

Deployers must, pursuant to FTC regulations to be promulgated within two years of enactment, provide individuals a means to opt out of algorithmic consequential actions and elect a human alternative at no cost.

H-01.4

Developers and deployers must not condition or impair the exercise of individual rights under this Act through false or misleading statements, or through dark-pattern interface design that obscures, subverts, or impairs individual autonomy and decision-making.

CP-01.3

Deployers must, pursuant to FTC regulations to be promulgated within two years of enactment, provide individuals a mechanism to appeal algorithmic consequential actions to a human reviewer. The mechanism must be accessible, proportionate, and include data correction capabilities and trained reviewers.

H-01.4

Sec. 204

Prohibition on retaliation; whistleblower protections

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 15 IN GENERAL.—A developer or deployer may not discriminate or retaliate against an individual (including by denying or threatening to deny the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities in relation to a consequential action) because the individual exercised any right, refused to waive any such right, raised a concern about a consequential action under this Act, or assisted in any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (2) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.— (A) DIFFERENTIAL IN SERVICE OR GOODS.—Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a developer or deployer from denying service to an individual, charging an individual a different price or rate, or providing a different level or quality of goods or services to an individual if the differential in service is necessary and directly related to the value provided to the developer or deployer by the covered algorithm. (B) LOYALTY PROGRAMS.—Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a developer or deployer from offering loyalty, rewards, premium features, discounts, or club card programs that provide benefits or rewards based on frequency of patronizing, or the amount of money spent at, a business consistent with this Act.

(b) 16 A developer or deployer may not, directly or indirectly, discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an individual for raising a concern, reporting or attempting to report a violation of this Act, or cooperating in any investigation or proceeding under this Act.

Section 204 prohibits developers and deployers from discriminating or retaliating against individuals who exercise rights under the Act, refuse to waive such rights, raise concerns, or assist in any investigation. A carve-out permits service or pricing differentials that are necessary and directly related to the value provided by the algorithm, and loyalty/rewards programs remain permissible. Separately, whistleblower protection bars employers from discharging, demoting, or otherwise retaliating against any individual who reports or cooperates in investigations of violations of this Act.

Compliance actions 2 items

Developers and deployers must not discriminate or retaliate against individuals who exercise rights under this Act, refuse to waive such rights, raise concerns about consequential actions, or assist in investigations. Service differentials are permitted only if necessary and directly related to the value provided by the algorithm.

G-03.3

Developers and deployers must not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise retaliate against any individual for reporting or attempting to report a violation of this Act, or for cooperating in any investigation or proceeding.

G-03.3

Sec. 301

Notice and disclosure

DeployerDeveloper

(a)–(b) 17 Each developer or deployer shall make publicly available, in plain language and in a clear, conspicuous, not misleading, easy-to-read, and readily accessible manner, a disclosure that provides a detailed and accurate representation of the developer or deployer's practices regarding the requirements under this Act. The disclosure required under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) The identity and the contact information of— (A) the developer or deployer... (B) any other entity within the same corporate structure... (2) A link to the website containing the developer or deployer's summaries of pre-deployment evaluations, impact assessments, and annual review of assessments, as applicable. (3) The categories of personal data the developer or deployer collects or processes... (4) Whether the developer or deployer transfers personal data, and, if so, each third party... (5) A prominent description of how an individual can exercise the rights described in this Act. (6) A general description of the developer or deployer's practices for compliance with the requirements described in sections 102 and 201. (7) The following disclosure: "The audit of this algorithm was conducted to comply with the Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025, which seeks to avoid the use of any algorithm that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes of individuals. The audit does not guarantee that this algorithm is safe or in compliance with all applicable laws." (8) The effective date of the disclosure.

(e)–(f) 18 MATERIAL CHANGES.— (1) NOTIFICATION.—If a developer or deployer makes a material change to the disclosure required under subsection (a), the developer or deployer shall notify each individual affected by such material change prior to implementing the material change. (2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each developer or deployer shall take all reasonable measures to provide to each affected individual a direct electronic notification regarding any material change to the disclosure... (3) LOG OF MATERIAL CHANGES.— (A) RETENTION PERIOD.—Beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, each developer or deployer shall retain a copy of each previous version of the disclosure required under subsection (a) for a period of at least 10 years after the last day on which such version was effective and publish each such version on its website. (B) LOG OF MATERIAL CHANGES.—Each developer or deployer shall make publicly available, in a clear, conspicuous, and readily accessible manner, a log describing the date and nature of each material change to its disclosure... (f) SHORT-FORM NOTICE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A deployer shall provide a short-form notice regarding a covered algorithm it develops, offers, licenses, or uses... (E) is not more than 500 words in length; and (F) is available to the public at no cost.

(g) 19 Each developer or deployer shall make publicly available, in a clear, conspicuous, and readily accessible manner, a mechanism for an individual impacted by a covered algorithm to report to the developer or deployer potential violations of this Act.

Section 301 requires each developer and deployer to publish a detailed public disclosure of its practices regarding covered algorithms. The disclosure must include entity and contact information, links to evaluation/assessment summaries, categories of personal data collected or processed, third-party data transfer recipients and purposes, a description of individual rights, a general compliance description, a mandatory audit disclaimer statement, and the effective date. Disclosures must be available in each covered language and accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Material changes require direct electronic notification to affected individuals before implementation, and all previous disclosure versions must be retained and published for at least 10 years with a log of material changes. Deployers must provide a short-form notice (max 500 words) at first interaction. Developers and deployers must also provide a public reporting mechanism for individuals to report potential violations.

Compliance actions 3 items

Developers and deployers must publish a detailed public disclosure covering entity identity and contact information, links to evaluation/assessment summaries, personal data categories collected, third-party data transfers, individual rights descriptions, compliance practices, a mandatory audit disclaimer, and the disclosure effective date. Disclosures must be in each covered language and accessible to individuals with disabilities.

G-02.1

Developers and deployers must notify affected individuals of material disclosure changes before implementation via direct electronic notification, retain all previous disclosure versions for at least 10 years on their website, and maintain a public log of material changes. Deployers must provide a short-form notice (max 500 words) at an individual's first interaction with the covered algorithm or on their website if no relationship exists.

G-02.1

Developers and deployers must make publicly available a mechanism for individuals impacted by a covered algorithm to report potential violations of this Act.

G-02

Sec. 303

Consumer awareness

(a)–(c) NOTICE OF CONSUMER RIGHTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish, on the internet website of the Commission, a web page that describes each provision, right, obligation, and requirement of this Act... (b) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall publish on the internet website of the Commission a report that— (1) describes and summarizes the information contained in any pre-deployment evaluation, impact assessment, and developer review submitted to the Commission... (c) PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE REPOSITORY.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the Commission publishes the first annual report under subsection (b), the Commission shall develop a publicly accessible repository to publish each pre-deployment evaluation, impact assessment, and developer review submitted to the Commission in accordance with section 102...

Section 303 requires the FTC to publish on its website a consumer-rights web page describing all provisions, rights, obligations, remedies, and protections of this Act, categorized for individuals, deployers, and developers, in each covered language and accessible format. The FTC must publish an annual report summarizing all submitted evaluations and assessments and develop a publicly accessible, searchable repository for all pre-deployment evaluations, impact assessments, and developer reviews submitted under Section 102. The repository must be publicly available, searchable, downloadable, and machine-readable. Trade secrets may be redacted; personal data must be redacted.

Sec. 401

Enforcement by the Commission

(a)–(c) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of title I, II, or III or a regulation promulgated thereunder shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). (b) POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), the Commission shall enforce this Act and the regulations promulgated under this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this Act... (c) JURISDICTION.—Notwithstanding section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act... the Commission shall also enforce this Act... with respect to— (1) organizations not organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members; (2) common carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934... (3) a bank, savings and loan institution... or Federal credit union... (4) an air carrier or foreign air carrier... (5) a person, partnership,or corporation subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921...

Section 401 designates violations of Titles I, II, or III as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. The FTC enforces with the same powers as under the FTC Act, but with expanded jurisdiction covering nonprofits, common carriers, banks, savings and loan institutions, federal credit unions, air carriers, and entities subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act — all of which are normally outside FTC jurisdiction. The FTC may promulgate implementing rules under APA notice-and-comment procedures.

Sec. 402

Enforcement by States

(a)–(c) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the attorney general of a State or a State data protection authority has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of a person in a practice that violates title I, II, or III, or a regulation promulgated thereunder, the attorney general may, as parens patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate Federal district court of the United States... to— (1) enjoin any such violation by the person; (2) enforce compliance with the requirements of this Act; (3) obtain a permanent, temporary, or preliminary injunction or other appropriate equitable relief; (4) obtain civil penalties in the amount of $15,000 per violation, or 4 percent of the defendant's average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years, whichever is greater; (5) obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of such State; (6) obtain reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs; and (7) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to be appropriate.

Section 402 authorizes state attorneys general and state data protection authorities to bring parens patriae civil actions in federal court on behalf of state residents for violations of Titles I, II, or III. Available remedies include injunctive relief, civil penalties of $15,000 per violation or 4% of average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years (whichever is greater), damages, restitution, and attorney's fees. The state AG must notify the FTC before filing (unless infeasible), and the FTC has 180 days to intervene. State investigatory powers are preserved.

Sec. 403

Private right of action

(a)–(b) ENFORCEMENT BY INDIVIDUALS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation of title I, II, or III, or a regulation promulgated thereunder, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. (2) RELIEF.—In a civil action brought under paragraph (1) in which the plaintiff prevails, the court may award— (A) treble damages or $15,000 per violation, whichever is greater; (B) nominal damages; (C) punitive damages; (D) reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs; and (E) any other relief, including equitable or declaratory relief, that the court determines appropriate... (b) INVALIDITY OF PRE-DISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND PRE-DISPUTE JOINT ACTION WAIVERS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with regard to a dispute arising under this Act.

Section 403 creates a private right of action for any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation of Titles I, II, or III. Prevailing plaintiffs may recover treble damages or $15,000 per violation (whichever is greater), nominal damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and equitable or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs must notify the FTC and state attorney general before filing and allow 60 days for response. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint-action waivers are rendered invalid and unenforceable for disputes arising under this Act, with enforceability determined by courts rather than arbitrators.

Sec. 404

Severability

If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances, shall not be affected by the invalidation.

Standard severability clause providing that if any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

Sec. 405

Rules of construction

(a)–(b) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to— (1) waive or otherwise limit any requirement under the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) for an employer... to bargain collectively regarding the deployment or effects of a covered algorithm; (2) absolve an employer of any obligation to ensure a covered algorithm and its effects comply with health and safety laws; (3) allow an employer to deploy a covered algorithm that interferes with the rights of employees under any Federal, State, or local law; or (4) absolve any other duty or requirement under any other Federal, State, or local law. (b) OTHERWISE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY.—No regulation or standard imposed under this Act may be construed in a manner that would lessen the stringency of the requirements of any applicable Federal or State agency that are otherwise applicable. This Act does not divest any such agency of any authority derived from any other applicable law.

Section 405 preserves existing labor, health and safety, and other federal, state, and local obligations. Nothing in the Act waives collective bargaining requirements regarding algorithm deployment, absolves employers of health and safety compliance, allows algorithm deployment that interferes with employee rights, or displaces any other duty under existing law. No regulation under this Act may lessen the stringency of otherwise applicable federal or state agency requirements, and no agency is divested of existing authority.

Sec. 501

Occupational series relating to algorithm auditing

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall exercise the authority of the Director under section 5105 of title 5, United States Code, to establish a new occupational series and associated policies covering Federal Government positions in the field of algorithm auditing... which shall include algorithm auditing practices, platform auditing, evaluation and assessment of artificial intelligence systems, computer security, independent evaluation and audits of computer systems, data science, statistics, auditing of anticompetitive practices, and related fields.

Section 501 directs the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish a new federal occupational series covering algorithm auditing positions within 270 days of enactment. The series must include algorithm auditing practices, platform auditing, AI evaluation and assessment, computer security, independent evaluation of computer systems, data science, statistics, and auditing of anticompetitive practices.

Sec. 502

Additional Federal resources

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commission and other Federal agencies enumerated in this Act such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. (b) COMMISSION PERSONNEL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission may hire not more than 500 additional personnel to accomplish the work of the Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices relating to the development or deployment of covered algorithms in accordance with this Act.

Section 502 authorizes appropriations as necessary to carry out this Act and allows the FTC to hire up to 500 additional personnel for enforcement of covered algorithm-related unfair or deceptive practices.

Sec. 302

Study on explanations regarding the use of covered algorithms

STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall conduct a study, with notice and public comment, on the feasibility of requiring deployers to provide a clear, conspicuous, easy-to-use, no-cost mechanism that is accessible for individuals with disabilities and allows an individual to receive an explanation as to whether and how a covered algorithm used by the deployer affects or affected an individual... (b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that includes the findings of the study...

Section 302 directs the FTC to conduct a study, with notice and public comment, on the feasibility of requiring deployers to provide individuals with explanations of whether and how a covered algorithm affected them. The study must cover explanation purposes, delivery methods, identity verification, technical feasibility, and developer information-sharing requirements. A report with findings and legislative recommendations must be submitted to Congress within 18 months of enactment. This section does not impose a compliance obligation on developers or deployers; it is a study mandate directed at the FTC.

Safety Harmful content prevention · self-harm escalation

2 items

S-01.1

S-01

Deceptive Conduct AI-generated likeness · consent requirements

2 items

CP-01

Developers and deployers must not engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm.

CP-01.3

Human Oversight Decision review · appeal pathways

7 items

H-02.11

H-02.1

H-02.8

H-01.4

Governance Risk management · accountability programs

7 items

G-01.3

G-03.3

G-02.1

G-02

Developers and deployers must make publicly available a mechanism for individuals impacted by a covered algorithm to report potential violations of this Act.

Regulatory Reporting · disclosure · audit

1 item

R-02.1

Passage Likelihood

Low

Status Introduced

Chamber No passage

Committee No action

Majority party (No data)

Bipartisan No

Prior session None

Legislative History

2025-12-02 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Sources

Full Text ↗

Entry Last Reviewed

2026-05-20

AI generated