Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4518
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-17: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-12T09:06:40Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act (H.R. 4518) aims to combat the online spread of illegal drugs by requiring certain internet service providers to report known violations involving controlled substances to the U.S. Attorney General. It targets the unlawful creation, sale, distribution, or possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, counterfeit drugs (fake versions of prescription medications), and unauthorized prescription painkillers or stimulants. The goal is to help law enforcement investigate and reduce these activities on digital platforms without mandating constant surveillance.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: Clarifies terms like "electronic communication service" (e.g., email or messaging platforms), "remote computing service" (e.g., cloud storage), "provider" (any such service), and "website" (publicly accessible online content).
- Reporting Duty: Providers must submit a report to the Attorney General within 60 days if they gain "actual knowledge" (direct awareness, not suspicion) of crimes involving the specified drugs. Reports can also be filed based on a "reasonable belief" to aid prevention. Exemptions apply to broadband internet access and text messaging services.
- Report Contents: Includes provider contact details and account information (e.g., usernames, IP addresses, email addresses) but excludes private communication contents unless the provider chooses to include them. Optional details may cover timestamps, locations, or full messages if available.
- Attorney General's Role: Conducts an initial review of reports; if warranted, forwards them to federal, state, or local law enforcement for investigation. Requires data minimization (storing only necessary information briefly) and annual public reports on report volumes, outcomes (e.g., convictions), and discovery methods (human vs. automated).
- Preservation Requirement: Submitting a report automatically requests providers to preserve related data for 90 days to support investigations. Providers cannot notify users of this without a 45-business-day delay and Attorney General notice.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance: Criminal fines up to $190,000 for first-time failure to report (up to $380,000 for repeats); civil fines of $50,000–$100,000 for false or incomplete reports.
- Privacy Safeguards: Providers are not required to monitor users, scan content, or decrypt messages. Knowledge cannot be assumed from inaction alone, as long as providers aren't willfully ignoring violations. Law enforcement disclosures of report details are strictly limited (e.g., to prosecutors, courts, or other agencies with need).
- Prohibitions: Law enforcement cannot submit fake reports or use this system covertly; evidence from such violations is inadmissible in court.
- Severability: If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Adds a new Section 521 to the Controlled Substances Act (part of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act), creating mandatory reporting for online drug violations—previously, no such specific requirement existed for these providers regarding controlled substances.
- Amends the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2702) to explicitly allow providers to disclose certain account and communication data to the Attorney General for these reports, expanding exceptions to privacy protections without overriding broader rules on stored electronic data.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Enhances the Department of Justice's (via Attorney General) ability to track and prosecute online drug trafficking, potentially increasing investigations and convictions. State and local agencies gain access to shared reports, streamlining multi-level enforcement. Annual reporting promotes transparency but adds administrative workload.
- Citizens: May deter illegal online drug activities, benefiting public health by curbing access to dangerous substances like fentanyl. However, it could raise privacy concerns for innocent users if reports lead to unwarranted scrutiny, though safeguards limit overreach.
- International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but U.S.-based tech firms with global operations (e.g., social media platforms) may face compliance pressures, potentially influencing international data-sharing norms on cybercrime.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Providers: Electronic communication and remote computing services (e.g., social media companies like Meta or X, email providers like Google, cloud services like Amazon Web Services) bear reporting and preservation burdens, facing fines for non-compliance.
- Law Enforcement: Federal (e.g., DEA, FBI), state, and local agencies receive actionable intelligence, aiding drug enforcement efforts.
- Users and Suspects: Individuals or entities involved in online drug sales/distribution face higher detection risks; innocent users are protected by no-monitoring rules but may experience data preservation during probes.
- General Public: Benefits from reduced drug proliferation, particularly in the opioid crisis, named after victims Cooper Davis and Devin Norring.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens tools against digital drug markets while integrating with existing privacy laws (e.g., no changes to end-to-end encryption or warrant requirements for deeper access). The severability clause protects the law's core if challenged.
- Constitutional: Addresses potential Fourth Amendment concerns (unreasonable searches) by prohibiting affirmative monitoring or scanning, relying only on "actual knowledge" to avoid compelled surveillance. First Amendment implications are low, as it targets criminal activity, not speech.
- Political: Bipartisan support (introduced by Rep. Miller-Meeks with co-sponsors from both parties) reflects urgency around the fentanyl epidemic. Referred to Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committees, it signals focus on tech accountability in public health crises without broad internet regulation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
Cosponsors (10)
Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8], Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-17: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-17: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-17: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-17: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act — issued 2025-07-17 — PDF (21 pages)