LISTOS Act of 2025

Bill Number

S. 3540

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Science, Technology, Communications

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-12-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Last Updated

2026-01-20T15:13:37Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Language-Inclusive Support and Transparency for Online Services Act of 2025 (LISTOS Act) aims to promote equitable online safety by requiring large online platforms to invest in and transparently report on content moderation practices for non-English languages. It addresses historical under-investment in non-English moderation, which has led to uneven protection against illegal or harmful content, fraud, and harassment targeting non-English-speaking communities.

Key Provisions

• Sense of Congress: Expresses that platforms must invest equally across languages to ensure user safety, equitable digital access, and protection of economic opportunities, public health, and civil rights.
• Consistent Enforcement (Section 3): Platforms must apply reasonably consistent processes for detecting, suppressing, and removing illegal content or policy-violating content across languages where they monetize (e.g., earn revenue through ads or user payments). Enforcement considers factors like staffing and automated tool effectiveness. Exceptions include end-to-end encrypted messaging services and languages used by fewer than 100,000 U.S. users for 9+ months in the past year. No specific content actions are mandated.
• Disclosures on Staffing and Processes (Section 4): Platforms must submit annual, public reports to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in machine-readable format, covering:
• Staffing details: Number of manual reviewers, broken down by location, assigned regions, languages, and proficiency; plus training and support (e.g., mental health services), noting any differences by region or employment type.
• Automated processes: Performance metrics and safeguards for consistency across languages if used for detection or decisions.
• Monetization: Languages involved and revenue breakdown by language.
• In-language reviews: Percentage of content reviewed in original language vs. translated; policies on translation use.
• Translation processes: Languages reviewed without translation; details on automated translation methods and review differences.
• Outcomes: Takedowns and average response times to user requests, by language.
• Additional FTC-specified info.
• Access to Tools and Documentation (Section 5): Platforms must provide reporting tools for content issues and post all policies (e.g., terms of service, community guidelines) in all supported languages.
• Advisory Group (Section 6): FTC establishes a group within 360 days to advise on best practices for "covered technologies" (e.g., speech recognition, natural language processing, image/video analysis, automated content decisions) to ensure non-discriminatory performance across languages. Includes diverse members (federal/non-federal, impacted communities, moderators, platforms). Findings and recommendations published online; exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act; funding authorized.
• Enforcement (Section 7): Violations treated as unfair/deceptive practices under FTC Act. FTC enforces with full powers (e.g., penalties). States can sue on behalf of residents for injunctions, compliance, or damages, with notice to FTC and intervention rights; preserves state investigatory powers. No state actions if FTC exempts the platform.
• Regulations (Section 8): FTC must start rulemaking within 120 days for Sections 3 and 4; additional rules as needed via standard notice-and-comment process.
• Effective Dates (Section 9): Sections 3 and 4 effective 120 days after regulations; Section 5 effective 120 days after enactment.
• Definitions (Section 10): Key terms include "covered platform" (websites/apps with 10M+ monthly U.S. users allowing user-generated content, like social media or search engines); "monetization practices" (revenue from content amplification or business use); "platform policies" (terms governing user conduct).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces novel federal requirements for multilingual content moderation transparency and consistency, building on the FTC Act's unfair/deceptive practices framework but adding specific reporting and equity mandates absent in prior law. It does not alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which immunizes platforms from liability for user content) but imposes operational duties without requiring specific content removals, preserving platform discretion.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Increases FTC workload for rulemaking, enforcement, and advisory oversight; authorizes funding for the advisory group. Enables state attorneys general to pursue actions, potentially leading to more coordinated federal-state efforts.
• Citizens: Improves safety for non-English speakers (e.g., faster responses to harmful content, better fraud protection) and promotes digital equity, though small-language users (<100,000) may see limited benefits. English-dominant users unaffected directly.
• International Relations: May pressure global platforms to standardize practices worldwide, indirectly benefiting U.S. diaspora communities and influencing international norms on digital inclusion, but no direct foreign policy effects.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Large Online Platforms: "Covered platforms" (e.g., major social media, search engines with 10M+ U.S. users) face new compliance costs for staffing, reporting, and tools.
• Non-English-Speaking Users: Primary beneficiaries, gaining equitable moderation and access.
• Content Moderators and Staff: Impacts training, support, and job conditions, especially for multilingual roles.
• FTC and State Officials: Gain enforcement tools and resources.
• Impacted Communities: Non-English groups vulnerable to harassment/fraud; advisory group includes their representatives.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Treats violations as FTC Act breaches, enabling civil penalties without new criminal liability; state enforcement mirrors consumer protection laws but requires FTC coordination to avoid duplication. Exceptions protect privacy (e.g., encryption) and feasibility for rare languages.
• Constitutional: Aligns with First Amendment by avoiding mandates on specific content decisions (explicit "rule of construction" limits this); focuses on processes, not speech suppression, reducing overbreadth risks.
• Political: Advances civil rights and equity goals, potentially bridging partisan divides on tech regulation by emphasizing transparency over censorship. Could spur industry self-regulation or lawsuits challenging reporting burdens as overly intrusive.

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

Sponsor

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Cosponsors (3)

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]

Recent Actions

• 2025-12-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
• 2025-12-17: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• Language-Inclusive Support and Transparency for Online Services Act of 2025 — issued 2025-12-17 — PDF (18 pages)