TERMS Act
- Bill Number
- S. 2010
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-10: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T22:49:30Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The TERMS Act (S. 2010) aims to promote transparency in how online service providers handle user account restrictions. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and organizations have clear information about providers' rules, enforcement processes, and policies for suspending or terminating accounts. This helps users make informed decisions about using these services and fosters a more competitive online marketplace.
Key Provisions
- Disclosure of Acceptable Use Policies: Online service providers must publicly share their acceptable use policies within 180 days of the Act's enactment. These policies must be clear and accessible (e.g., in terms of service) and include:
- Specific prohibited acts or practices that could lead to restrictions.
- Details on enforcement methods, including any third-party involvement.
- Information on appeal processes (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 providing notice before restrictions.
- Providers must give advance notice of material changes to these policies.
- Advance Written Notice Before Restrictions: Providers must notify users in writing at least 7 days before restricting access (e.g., suspending or terminating an account), unless an exception applies. The notice must detail:
- The specific violation and how it breaks the policy.
- Appeal options and process (if available).
- An option for the user to request public disclosure of the notice.
- Notification can be via email, contact info, or a prominent in-app/website alert.
- Exceptions: No advance notice is needed for court orders, compliance with federal law, or to prevent imminent risks like death, serious injury, or health threats. In these cases, required information must be provided as soon as possible, and the notice publicly disclosed if requested.
- Annual Reporting Requirements: Starting one year after enactment, providers must publish an annual report on their website in both human-readable and machine-readable formats (with an open license for public use). The report covers:
- Total alerts of potential violations from sources like user complaints, employees, automated tools, government entities, nonprofits, or others.
- Number of restrictions taken (e.g., terminations, suspensions, limitations, or warnings), categorized by policy violation and alert source.
- Number of appeals filed and how many were successful (reversals).
- Enforcement and Guidance: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the Act by treating violations as unfair or deceptive practices under existing FTC rules. This applies to for-profit and nonprofit providers. The FTC must issue non-binding guidance within 180 days, including best practices, but compliance with it can serve as evidence in defenses. Penalties follow FTC procedures.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This Act introduces mandatory transparency requirements not explicitly required under current U.S. law, such as detailed public disclosures of enforcement policies, advance notice for most account restrictions, and standardized annual reporting on enforcement actions. It builds on the FTC Act by expanding its reach to nonprofits and treating non-compliance as an unfair practice, without altering core liability protections like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields platforms from content liability).
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The FTC gains expanded enforcement duties, including oversight of nonprofits and issuance of guidance, potentially increasing its workload and resources needed for investigations.
- On Citizens and Users: Individuals, businesses, and organizations benefit from clearer rules, advance warnings, and appeal options, reducing surprise account losses and enabling better choices among providers. However, it may not prevent all restrictions, especially in urgent cases.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though U.S.-based providers operating globally may need to adapt policies, potentially influencing international standards for online transparency.
- Broader Effects: Could lead to more predictable online environments but impose compliance costs on smaller providers, possibly affecting innovation or market entry.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Online Service Providers: Platforms like social media sites, e-commerce apps, and other account-based websites (e.g., requiring logins for access) must update policies, implement notice systems, and produce reports, facing potential FTC penalties for non-compliance.
- Users: Consumers, businesses, nonprofits, and organizations who create accounts, gaining protections against arbitrary restrictions but possibly seeing more formalized enforcement.
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Primary enforcer, responsible for guidance, investigations, and penalties.
- Nonprofit Organizations: Explicitly included as both potential providers (e.g., online forums) and alert sources, extending oversight beyond commercial entities.
- Government Entities: Can alert providers of violations but must be specified in reports, increasing accountability in interactions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens FTC authority over online practices without creating new private rights of action (lawsuits by individuals), focusing enforcement on the agency. Exceptions for legal compliance preserve obligations under laws like child protection statutes.
- Constitutional Implications: The requirements involve commercial disclosures, which are generally permissible under the First Amendment as they regulate business conduct rather than suppressing speech. However, mandates for public reporting and notices could face challenges if seen as compelled speech, though courts have upheld similar transparency rules (e.g., in advertising).
- Political Implications: Introduced by Republican senators, the Act emphasizes accountability for large tech platforms amid concerns over content moderation and "deplatforming." It promotes user empowerment without mandating specific moderation standards, potentially bridging partisan divides on online regulation while avoiding broader censorship debates.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (9)
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL], Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR], Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID], Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY], Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS], Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-10: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 2025-06-10: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Transparency in Enforcement, Restricting, and Monitoring of Services Act — issued 2025-06-10 — PDF (14 pages)