A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the 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 bill is cited as the Email Privacy Act and aims to update privacy protections for electronic communications information stored by third-party service providers. It amends title 18 of the United States Code to address voluntary disclosures and required disclosures by service providers to governmental entities. Specifically, the legislation removes provisions that previously distinguished between communications stored for more or less than 180 days. It also clarifies rules related to warrants, legal processes, and congressional subpoenas. Lastly, the bill permits providers to notify customers when they receive a warrant, court order, subpoena, or request, except as otherwise provided by law.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +9
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
By eliminating the 180-day distinction and requiring a warrant for stored emails regardless of age, the bill significantly bolsters individual privacy rights.
- Scored +8
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
The legislation explicitly updates privacy protections for electronic communications stored by third-party service providers by removing the outdated 180-day rule.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The requirement for a proper warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction enhances due process protections regarding digital communications.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The bill standardizes warrant requirements for stored electronic communications, which may introduce some friction for law enforcement investigative processes.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Updated Warrant Requirements: Section 3(b) of the bill removes the old 180-day rule from section 2703(a) of title 18, United States Code. This change ensures stronger privacy protections for electronic communications regardless of how long they have been stored by a provider.
-
Customer Notification: Section 3(a) adds a new subsection (i) allowing a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to notify a subscriber or customer upon receiving a warrant, court order, subpoena, or request. This keeps people informed when the government seeks their information.
-
Consent and Control: Section 2 updates section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, to explicitly protect communications stored, held, or maintained by a service and clarifies that disclosures can be made with the lawful consent of the subscriber, customer, originator, addressee, or intended recipient. This gives individuals more control over their personal electronic communications.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exceptions for Provider-Related Communications: Section 3(a) adds a rule of construction in subsection (j) stating that the restrictions do not modify governmental authorities to obtain communications if the originator, addressee, or intended recipient is an officer, director, employee, or agent of the provider acting in that capacity, or if the communication promotes a product or service and is readily available to the general public. This could mean fewer privacy protections for certain types of business or promotional communications associated with providers.
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 people in middle age be better off under this? Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides universally stronger digital privacy protections for all citizens regardless of income. Would people over 65 be better off under this? Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — By eliminating the 180-day distinction and requiring a warrant for stored emails regardless of age, the bill significantly bolsters individual privacy rights. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The requirement for a proper warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction enhances due process protections regarding digital communications. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill allows service providers to notify customers when government entities request their electronic information.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The legislation explicitly updates privacy protections for electronic communications stored by third-party service providers by removing the outdated 180-day rule.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer privacy rights by strengthening warrant requirements for electronic communications stored by third-party providers.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The bill standardizes warrant requirements for stored electronic communications, which may introduce some friction for law enforcement investigative processes.
- 6/1/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon