A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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
This bill, known as the SAFE Platforms Act, stops certain online platforms from helping create fraudulent content aimed at consumers. It requires platforms to give users an easy way to report scams and lets content creators submit counter-notices if their material gets removed by mistake. Platforms must also set up default privacy settings that lower fraud risks, such as hiding user accounts, media, and direct messaging from unconnected users unless the user chooses otherwise. Additionally, platforms must verify the identities of advertisers before letting them buy ads, with extra checks required for high-risk categories like financial services and health products. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are given the power to enforce these rules, and injured individuals can also bring civil actions in court.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects consumers from online fraud by requiring platforms to implement scam reporting, advertiser verification, and default privacy settings.
- Scored +7
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill imposes new anti-fraud requirements, advertiser verification rules, and default privacy mandates on large interactive online platforms.
- Scored +7
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
The legislation requires covered platforms to set default privacy settings that reduce fraud vulnerability by hiding accounts, media, and direct messaging from unconnected users.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Legitimate business owners and creators may face burdensome reporting requirements and restricted default profile visibility that could complicate reaching new audiences.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Easy Scam Reporting: Section 2(b)(1)(A) requires platforms to put a clearly visible Report Scam button or link on all content that could contain an advertisement or promotional material. This helps people quickly and easily report suspected scams.
-
Better Privacy Protection: Section 2(b)(2)(A) forces platforms to set default privacy settings that reduce fraud vulnerability. This stops accounts, media, direct messaging, locations, and connections from being displayed to unconnected users unless the user explicitly chooses to make them public.
-
Advertiser Verification: Section 2(e)(1) requires platforms to verify the legal name, physical address, contact information, and tax ID of advertisers before allowing them to buy ads. This makes it harder for scammers to hide behind fake identities when trying to trick consumers.
-
Access to Basic Advertiser Information: Section 2(e)(5) gives users access to basic information about any advertiser whose content they view, including their legal name, the country where they are based, and how long they have maintained an account. This gives people more transparency to judge if an ad is trustworthy.
-
Right to Sue Scammers and Platforms: Section 3(c) gives people who are injured by a violation of the law the right to bring a civil action in court to recover damages for actual monetary loss or statutory damages. If a court finds the violation was done willfully or knowingly, the damages can be increased up to three times the normal amount.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Burdensome Reporting Requirements: Section 2(b)(1)(B)(iii) states that users reporting fraud must provide their identity, contact information, a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that the report is made in good faith, and specific factual the basis for the report. This strict process might discourage everyday people from reporting scams if they find the paperwork or legal threats too intimidating.
-
Limits on Default Account Visibility: Section 2(b)(2)(A)(i) through (vi) automatically hides user accounts, media, direct messaging, and locations from unconnected users by default. Regular people who want to grow a legitimate new business or social profile might find it harder to reach a wider audience because their accounts will not be visible to strangers without manually changing several settings.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit significantly from increased safeguards against fraudulent financial and investment schemes promoted on digital platforms. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors, who are frequently targeted by online scammers and fraudulent investment pitches, will benefit from robust platform scam-reporting and advertiser verification. Would children be better off under this? — Children and minors using online platforms benefit from reduced exposure to fraudulent schemes and deceptive advertisements. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households are often disproportionately impacted by financial scams, and the bill's anti-fraud protections help shield them from monetary losses. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals gain enhanced protections against financial fraud and misleading commercial advertisements online. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class consumers benefit from safer online spaces and transparent advertiser information when engaging with commercial content. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill mandates that platform reporting mechanisms and advertising content accessibility standards be compatible with common assistive technologies. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults who frequently use digital platforms will be better protected from online scams and predatory financial products. Would business owners be better off under this? — Legitimate business owners and creators may face burdensome reporting requirements and restricted default profile visibility that could complicate reaching new audiences.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill provides content creators with a formal counter-notice mechanism to contest the removal of material by mistake. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly grants state attorneys general the authority to bring civil actions in state or federal court to enforce compliance and protect state residents. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations and enforce anti-fraud requirements on online platforms.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The legislation requires covered platforms to set default privacy settings that reduce fraud vulnerability by hiding accounts, media, and direct messaging from unconnected users. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill imposes new anti-fraud requirements, advertiser verification rules, and default privacy mandates on large interactive online platforms.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects consumers from online fraud by requiring platforms to implement scam reporting, advertiser verification, and default privacy settings.
- 9/16/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
James MoylanRepublican · Guam