Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act
- Bill Number
- S. 2316
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-05T12:03:20Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act aims to combat the online spread of illegal drugs by requiring certain internet service providers to report known violations involving fentanyl, methamphetamine, counterfeit drugs, or unauthorized prescription medications to the U.S. Attorney General. The goal is to reduce the unlawful creation, sale, distribution, or possession of these substances through timely reporting and investigations.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: Clarifies terms such as "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 as soon as possible, but no later than 60 days, after gaining "actual knowledge" (direct awareness without needing to search) of crimes involving:
- Manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to do so: fentanyl or methamphetamine.
- Similar activities with counterfeit substances (fake drugs, including those mimicking prescription pills).
- Unauthorized handling of prescription painkillers or stimulants by non-licensed individuals or entities.
- Providers may also report based on a "reasonable belief" (strong suspicion) of such crimes.
- Report Contents: Includes provider contact details and account information (e.g., usernames, IP addresses, email addresses, but not private message contents unless the provider chooses to include them). Optional additions: timestamps, location data, photos/videos related to the crime, or full communications.
- Attorney General's Role: Reviews reports preliminarily; if warranted, forwards to federal, state, or local law enforcement for investigation. Must minimize data storage (keep only what's needed and delete after use) and enforce the law.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance:
- Criminal fines up to $190,000 for first failure to report, $380,000 for repeats.
- Civil fines ($50,000–$100,000) for knowingly false or incomplete reports.
- Privacy Safeguards: Providers are not required to monitor users, scan content, or decrypt encrypted messages. Knowledge cannot be assumed from inaction alone, as long as providers aren't willfully ignoring obvious issues.
- Disclosure Limits: Law enforcement can share report details only for official duties (e.g., investigations, court orders, or state law enforcement), with protections like court-approved conditions.
- Data Preservation: Submitting a report automatically requests providers to preserve related data for 90 days; extensions possible only for active investigations. Providers cannot notify users without a 45-business-day delay after informing the Attorney General.
- Annual Reporting: The Attorney General must publish yearly stats on reports received, investigations, convictions, and discovery methods (e.g., human vs. AI moderation).
- Prohibitions and Exemptions: Law enforcement cannot submit fake reports undercover (evidence from such reports is inadmissible). Exempts broadband internet and text messaging providers when acting in those roles.
- 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.
- Amends the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2702) to allow providers to disclose user data to the Attorney General specifically for these reports, expanding exceptions for sharing communications without a warrant in drug cases. This builds on existing allowances for inadvertent discoveries of crimes but adds a structured reporting framework.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Enhances the Department of Justice's and law enforcement's ability to detect and prosecute online drug trafficking quickly, potentially increasing case loads and requiring resources for report reviews and data management. Annual reports could improve transparency and coordination across federal, state, and local levels.
- Citizens: May deter online drug sales by raising detection risks, benefiting public health amid the fentanyl crisis, but could lead to more investigations of individuals based on provider reports, affecting privacy for users on platforms. No direct impact on international relations, though it could indirectly aid global efforts against cross-border drug networks.
- Service Providers: Imposes compliance burdens (e.g., systems for detecting and reporting violations), with financial penalties for errors, but includes flexibility (e.g., optional details) to avoid excessive monitoring costs.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Providers: Electronic communication services (e.g., social media like Facebook, email like Gmail) and remote computing services (e.g., cloud platforms like Google Drive or Dropbox) must implement reporting processes.
- Law Enforcement: U.S. Attorney General, federal agencies (e.g., DEA, FBI), and state/local police, who gain access to reports for investigations.
- Users and Subscribers: Individuals or entities involved in reported activities (e.g., online sellers of illegal drugs) face heightened scrutiny; innocent users may worry about false positives.
- Society at Large: Communities impacted by drug proliferation, including victims of overdoses, as the law targets counterfeit and synthetic drugs like fentanyl.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens tools against digital drug markets while incorporating data minimization to comply with privacy laws like the Stored Communications Act; penalties ensure accountability but provide defenses against frivolous reports.
- Constitutional: Addresses potential Fourth Amendment concerns (unreasonable searches) by prohibiting proactive monitoring or decryption, relying on "actual knowledge" to avoid broad surveillance. First Amendment implications are minimal, as it targets illegal conduct rather than speech.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (Republicans and Democrats) reflects consensus on the opioid epidemic; named after victims to emphasize urgency, it could influence tech policy debates on platform responsibility without mandating content moderation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (6)
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-07-17: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act — issued 2025-07-17 — PDF (21 pages)