Digital Integrity in Democracy Act
- Bill Number
- S. 840
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Science, Technology, Communications
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Last Updated
- 2025-05-06T18:34:07Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Digital Integrity in Democracy Act aims to protect the integrity of U.S. federal elections by making large social media platforms accountable for hosting false information about how elections are run. It targets misinformation that could confuse voters about voting rules, without restricting political opinions or advocacy.
Key Provisions
- Amendment to Section 230 Immunity: Social media platforms lose their legal protection (under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934) if they intentionally or knowingly allow "false election administration information" to remain on their sites. This applies to platforms with at least 25 million unique monthly U.S. users.
- Definition of False Election Administration Information: Objectively wrong details about federal elections, such as incorrect dates, locations, or methods for voting; voter eligibility rules (including penalties for illegal voting or registration status); or restrictions on who can vote. It must be publicly viewable on the platform.
- Exclusions: Does not cover political speech supporting or opposing candidates, federal officeholders, or political parties.
- Removal Process: Platforms must review and remove flagged false information quickly:
- Within 48 hours if notified on a non-election day, or 24 hours on an election day (defined as the voting date plus early voting or absentee ballot periods).
- Notifications must be written (including email), include enough details to find the content, and provide the complainant's contact information.
- Platforms must confirm removal in writing within 12 hours.
- Enforcement Mechanisms:
- The U.S. Attorney General can sue platforms for violations, seeking $50,000 per unreleased item of false information plus court orders to remove it.
- State attorneys general or secretaries of state can sue for state elections.
- Affected candidates (running for federal office) can sue after notifying state election officials, with the same penalties.
- Safe Harbor Protection: Platforms keep Section 230 immunity if they remove false information promptly after notification or if they discover it independently (within the same time limits).
- Effective Date: Applies to any such information hosted on or after the law's enactment.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Section 230 Modification: Currently, Section 230 shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, treating them as neutral hosts. This bill creates a narrow exception for intentional or knowing hosting of false election info, shifting some responsibility to platforms to monitor and act on such content during election periods.
- Introduces mandatory timelines and penalties for removal, which were not previously required under federal law for this type of misinformation.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases workload for the Department of Justice (via Attorney General enforcement) and state election officials, who gain new tools to combat election misinformation through lawsuits. Could lead to more coordinated federal-state efforts to monitor platforms.
- On Citizens: May reduce voter confusion and disenfranchisement by limiting the spread of false voting details, potentially boosting trust in elections and participation. However, it could indirectly affect access to information if platforms over-remove content to avoid liability.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it might influence how U.S. platforms handle global election misinformation, setting a precedent for other countries addressing similar issues.
- On Social Media Platforms: Large companies (e.g., those like Facebook or X with 25M+ U.S. users) face financial risks ($50,000 fines per violation) and operational changes, such as investing in faster content moderation systems, especially near elections.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Social Media Platforms: Primary targets, required to implement removal processes and risk losing legal protections.
- Voters and the Public: Beneficiaries through clearer election information, but potentially impacted if enforcement chills legitimate discussions.
- Election Officials and Candidates: Empowered to report and sue over false info, helping protect election integrity.
- Government Entities: U.S. and state attorneys general/secretaries of state gain enforcement authority.
- Content Creators and Users: Those posting election-related info must ensure accuracy to avoid removal, though political advocacy is protected.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Creates a private right of action for candidates and civil penalties, potentially leading to more litigation against platforms. The "objectively incorrect" standard requires platforms to verify facts, which could strain resources and invite disputes over what counts as "false."
- Constitutional Implications: Balances First Amendment free speech rights by excluding political opinions, but the required removal of non-political misinformation might raise concerns about government-compelled content moderation (viewed as indirect censorship). Courts could scrutinize if it overly burdens platforms' editorial discretion.
- Political Implications: Aims to safeguard democracy from misinformation without favoring any party, but could spark debates on platform neutrality versus election security. Introduced by bipartisan senators, it reflects growing concerns over online influence on elections, potentially influencing future tech regulation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (4)
Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 2025-03-04: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Digital Integrity in Democracy Act — issued 2025-03-04 — PDF (10 pages)