AMERICA Act

Bill Number

S. 1060

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Commerce

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-13: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-04-06T12:55:11Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The AMERICA Act aims to amend the Clayton Act, a key U.S. antitrust law, to address conflicts of interest in the digital advertising industry. It seeks to increase transparency, fairness, and competition by regulating large players in the buying, selling, and exchanging of online ads, preventing any single company from dominating multiple parts of the market.

Key Provisions

The bill inserts a new Section 8A into the Clayton Act, effective one year after enactment. It applies thresholds adjusted annually for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.

• Definitions: Key terms include:
• Digital advertisement: Any ad served electronically over the internet.
• Digital advertising exchange: A platform that connects buyers and sellers of digital ads.
• Buy-side brokerage: Services helping buyers (e.g., advertisers) purchase ad space.
• Sell-side brokerage: Services helping sellers (e.g., publishers) sell ad space.
• Digital advertising revenue: Broadly defined as the highest of various revenue metrics from ad exchanges or brokerages, including global figures.
• Other terms cover customers, ownership, divestiture (selling off assets to comply), and third parties (unaffiliated entities).

• Prohibitions for Large Entities (those with over $20 billion in prior-year digital ad revenue):
• Cannot own an ad exchange if they also own a buy-side or sell-side brokerage, or if they buy or sell ad space themselves.
• Cannot own both a buy-side and sell-side brokerage.
• These rules target vertical integration (controlling multiple supply chain steps) to avoid self-dealing.

• Requirements for Medium-to-Large Entities (over $5 billion in prior-year digital ad revenue):
• Best interest and execution duties: Brokerages must prioritize customers' interests, using care and skill, and seek the best available deal for each transaction.
• Transparency: On request, brokerages must provide detailed data (e.g., bid details, routing practices, fees) to verify compliance, while protecting user privacy by anonymizing personal data. Data cannot be used for tracking individuals.
• Firewalls: Policies to keep different business units (e.g., exchanges and brokerages) separate and operate at arm's length (independently, without favoritism).
• Fair access: Exchanges must treat all buyers and sellers equally, including access to tech and data.
• Time synchronization: Clocks must align closely (within 2 milliseconds) with official U.S. time standards for accurate transaction timing.
• Data ownership: Customers own records of their ad orders and results.
• Routing disclosure: Quarterly public reports on where orders are sent, including execution stats (e.g., fill rates, fees) for top venues.
• Annual certification: Entities must confirm compliance to the Attorney General.

• Enforcement Mechanisms:
• The Attorney General (AG) and state attorneys general can sue for violations, seeking injunctions (court orders to stop actions) and damages on behalf of harmed parties.
• Creates an Antitrust Consumer Damages Fund in the U.S. Treasury to distribute recovered damages to affected U.S. persons; excess funds revert to the general Treasury after 10 years.
• Private lawsuits allowed for harmed customers against large entities, with damages of at least $1 million per month of violation or actual losses, plus attorney fees; no forced waivers of class actions (group lawsuits).
• Divestiture (forced asset sales) must be filed with the AG for review to ensure no harm to competition; AG can demand documents and approve/deny within 60 days.

• Rules of Construction (Exceptions and Limits):
• Allows companies to sell their own ad inventory (without acquiring it just for resale) or buy ads to promote their products.
• Does not override existing merger review laws or prohibit anti-fraud collaborations.
• No disclosure required if it violates U.S. or foreign privacy laws.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• The Clayton Act previously focused on general antitrust issues like mergers and interlocking directorates but lacked specific rules for digital advertising. This adds targeted prohibitions on ownership structures and new duties (e.g., best interest, transparency) tailored to online ad markets, similar to securities trading regulations but for ads.
• Introduces divestiture timelines and AG oversight not previously detailed for this sector, plus a dedicated damages fund for antitrust harms, expanding remedies beyond standard Clayton Act penalties.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Empowers the Department of Justice (via the AG) with new review, enforcement, and certification roles, potentially increasing workload and requiring guidance issuance within 120 days of enactment. State attorneys general gain standing to sue, broadening federal-state cooperation.
• Citizens and Businesses: Advertisers (buyers) and publishers (sellers) may benefit from fairer pricing and transparency, potentially lowering costs and improving trust. Consumers could see indirect effects like more competitive ad markets, though privacy protections limit data misuse. Small entities below thresholds face no direct burdens but could gain market access.
• International Relations: Applies to global revenue, affecting foreign companies operating in the U.S. (e.g., requiring divestitures), which might strain relations with countries hosting major tech firms or prompt reciprocal regulations abroad.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Large Digital Ad Platforms: Companies like Google or Meta (exchanges, brokerages, or ad buyers/sellers) must divest conflicting assets or face prohibitions, impacting their business models.
• Advertisers and Buyers: Benefit from best execution and transparency but may need to adapt to new data requests.
• Publishers and Sellers: Gain fair access and ownership of transaction data, aiding revenue optimization.
• Brokerages and Exchanges: Smaller or medium entities (over $5B revenue) must implement compliance policies; all face reporting and certification duties.
• Consumers and Users: Indirectly protected via privacy rules and potential for less monopolistic ad pricing.
• Government: AG's office and states as enforcers; harmed U.S. persons as fund beneficiaries.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens antitrust enforcement in emerging digital markets, potentially setting precedents for regulating other tech sectors (e.g., data brokers). Private rights of action and no class action waivers could lead to more litigation, easing access for individuals but raising compliance costs.
• Constitutional: Divestiture requirements might face challenges under the Commerce Clause (regulating interstate commerce) or Takings Clause (if seen as seizing property without compensation), though antitrust laws have historically withstood such scrutiny. Privacy provisions align with existing laws like the FTC Act.
• Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (e.g., Sens. Lee, Klobuchar, Warren) signals broad support for curbing Big Tech dominance, but implementation could spark debates over innovation stifling versus competition promotion. Referred to the Judiciary Committee, passage would mark a rare targeted antitrust update.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

Cosponsors (7)

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-13: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-03-13: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• Advertising Middlemen Endangering Rigorous Internet Competition Accountability Act — issued 2025-03-13 — PDF (22 pages)