A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Halt Abusive Internet Lawsuits Act of 2026" aims to clarify how certain laws apply to digital commerce. It states that collecting, processing, or disclosing information for a commercial purpose cannot lead to claims or enforcement actions under laws regarding wiretapping, pen registers, trap and trace, or eavesdropping. This includes the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Additionally, any existing claims or actions of this type cannot be continued after the Act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +8
Would business owners be better off under this?
Reduces legal risks and litigation costs for businesses utilizing digital commerce tools.
- Scored +5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Beneficial for owners of large tech companies and digital platforms by reducing liability.
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Protects small businesses from expensive lawsuits related to routine digital tools like cookies and analytics.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -9
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Significantly diminishes privacy rights by eliminating the ability to sue for commercial wiretapping or eavesdropping.
- Scored -8
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
Effectively reduces privacy protections by prohibiting legal claims for unauthorized eavesdropping for commercial purposes.
- Scored -7
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
Decreases regulation by shielding companies from lawsuits related to data collection tools like pixels and chatbots.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection for businesses and service providers: Section 2(a)(1) prevents claims or enforcement actions related to wiretapping or eavesdropping for commercial information processing, which could reduce legal burdens for those engaging in digital commerce.
-
Support for digital tools: Section 2(b)(2) explicitly includes the use of cookies, pixels, chatbots, and analytics under digital commerce, potentially allowing these tools to be used for business operations without the risk of specific privacy-related lawsuits.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of legal recourse: Section 2(a)(1) removes the ability for individuals to bring claims or enforcement actions under Federal or State law regarding eavesdropping, wiretapping, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act when information is collected for a commercial purpose.
-
Termination of current lawsuits: Section 2(a)(2) mandates that any existing claims or enforcement actions in progress cannot be maintained, adjudicated, or arbitrated after the date the Act is enacted.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Effectively reduces privacy protections by prohibiting legal claims for unauthorized eavesdropping for commercial purposes. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Decreases regulation by shielding companies from lawsuits related to data collection tools like pixels and chatbots.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces legal risks and litigation costs for businesses utilizing digital commerce tools. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Beneficial for owners of large tech companies and digital platforms by reducing liability.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Overrides state laws, such as the California Invasion of Privacy Act, regarding commercial data collection. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Creates a uniform standard that limits state-level privacy lawsuits in digital commerce. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Significantly diminishes privacy rights by eliminating the ability to sue for commercial wiretapping or eavesdropping. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly preempts state laws that would otherwise allow privacy claims. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Terminates existing legal claims and arbitrations without further adjudication.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Protects small businesses from expensive lawsuits related to routine digital tools like cookies and analytics. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reduces legal liabilities for businesses engaged in digital commerce, potentially lowering operational costs. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Removes legal recourse for consumers against unauthorized wiretapping or eavesdropping for commercial purposes.
- 9/3/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House