TERMS Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3875
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-10: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T22:06:42Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Transparency in Enforcement, Restricting, and Monitoring of Services Act (TERMS Act), H.R. 3875, aims to promote transparency in how online service providers handle user account restrictions. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and organizations receive clear information about providers' rules and processes for suspending or terminating accounts, enabling informed decisions about using these services and fostering a more competitive online marketplace.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Online service provider: Any entity offering a public website, app, or service that requires users to create an account and operates in interstate or foreign commerce (includes non-profits and non-profit-driven entities).
- Restrict: Terminating, suspending, or limiting a user's account access due to a violation of the provider's rules.
- User: Anyone who creates an account or profile on the service.
- Other terms include the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the enforcing body and standard definitions for non-profits.
- Disclosure of Acceptable Use Policies (Section 4): Providers must publicly share their rules (called "acceptable use policies") within 180 days of the bill's enactment, in clear, easy-to-understand language on their website (e.g., in terms of service). The policy must cover:
- Specific prohibited actions that could lead to restrictions.
- How enforcement works, including any third-party help.
- Appeal options (or a statement if appeals are not allowed).
- Whether off-platform actions (e.g., social media posts or public statements) can trigger restrictions.
- Standards for notifying users before restrictions.
- Providers must give advance notice of major policy changes.
- Advance Written Notice Before Restrictions (Section 5): Providers must notify users in writing at least 7 days before restricting access (effective 180 days after enactment), except in cases of court orders or immediate risks to safety (e.g., preventing death, serious injury, or health threats). Notices must include:
- The exact violation and how it breaks the rules.
- Appeal process details (if available).
- Option for the user to request public disclosure of the notice.
- If an exception applies, providers must share the details as soon as possible and publicly disclose if requested.
- Notification can be via email, other contact info, or a prominent in-app/website alert.
- Annual Reporting Requirements (Section 6): Starting one year after enactment, providers must publish an annual report on their website in both human-readable and machine-readable formats (openly licensed for public use). Reports must detail:
- Total alerts of potential violations, broken down by source (e.g., user complaints, employees, automated tools, government entities, non-profits, or others).
- Number of restrictions imposed (e.g., terminations, suspensions, access limits, warnings), categorized by the specific rule violated and alert source.
- Number of appeals filed and how many were successful (i.e., reversed).
- Enforcement and Guidance (Section 7):
- Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act, giving the FTC full authority to investigate, penalize, and enforce (including against non-profits).
- The FTC must issue non-binding guidance within 180 days, offering best practices and examples to help providers comply.
- Compliance with guidance can serve as evidence in defenses, but enforcement focuses on direct violations of the law, not just deviation from guidance.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces new federal requirements for transparency and due process in online account moderation, which were not previously mandated by law. It builds on the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.) by classifying non-compliance as an unfair or deceptive practice, expanding FTC oversight to include non-profits without profit motives. No amendments to existing statutes are specified; instead, it creates standalone obligations for providers.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens and Users: Increases user protections by providing clear rules, advance warnings, and appeal options, reducing surprise account losses and helping users make better choices about online services. It may empower individuals to challenge unfair restrictions, especially for off-platform activities.
- On Online Service Providers: Requires operational changes like policy updates, notification systems, and public reporting, potentially raising compliance costs but encouraging consistent enforcement. Smaller providers might face more burden due to resource needs for reporting.
- On Government Agencies: Enhances the FTC's role in regulating digital platforms, allowing it to address moderation practices as consumer protection issues. No direct impacts on other agencies or international relations, though reports could inform broader policy on online harms.
- Broader Effects: Promotes a more accountable online ecosystem, potentially reducing arbitrary restrictions and boosting trust, but could slow down responses to violations if notice requirements delay actions.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Online Service Providers: Primary targets, including social media platforms, e-commerce sites, apps, and any account-based online services (e.g., tech giants like Meta or smaller apps).
- Users: Individuals, businesses, and organizations relying on these services for communication, commerce, or operations.
- Non-Profit Organizations: Both as potential providers (if they offer account-based services) and as sources of violation alerts.
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Gains enforcement responsibilities and must provide compliance guidance.
- Government Entities: Can alert providers to violations but are tracked in reports for transparency.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens consumer protection laws by applying FTC unfair/deceptive practice rules to content moderation, potentially leading to fines or orders for non-compliance. It clarifies that private companies must disclose moderation criteria, which could influence lawsuits over account terminations (e.g., as breaches of contract).
- Constitutional Implications: Focuses on transparency in private actions rather than government censorship, avoiding direct First Amendment conflicts. However, by requiring disclosure of off-platform enforcement bases, it may indirectly protect user speech by highlighting potential overreach in monitoring external activities.
- Political Implications: Advances bipartisan goals of online accountability (introduced by Reps. Goldman and Weber of Texas), emphasizing competition and user rights without mandating specific content rules. It could spark debates on balancing platform autonomy with user protections, influencing future digital regulation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]
Cosponsors (1)
Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-10: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-06-10: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-10: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Transparency in Enforcement, Restricting, and Monitoring of Services Act — issued 2025-06-10 — PDF (14 pages)