119-HR-6266 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HR 6266 Algorithm Accountability Act
A bipartisan House bill would scale back Section 230 protections for large social media platforms when their recommendation algorithms foreseeably contribute to bodily injury or death, creating a duty of care, a right to sue, and a ban on forced arbitration; it exempts chronological feeds and small or non‑social services and is now in the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
Headline Summary
The bill would make big social-media platforms legally responsible if their recommendation algorithms, used to personalize feeds, foreseeably contribute to real‑world injury or death, and it lets victims sue in federal court.
What It Does
The “Algorithm Accountability Act” narrows Section 230’s liability shield for large, for‑profit social media platforms when they fail a new “reasonable care” duty in designing, testing, and operating recommendation algorithms. If that failure foreseeably contributes to bodily injury or death—either to a user or caused by a user—the platform can be sued and loses Section 230 protection for that incident.
- Creates a duty of care for recommendation‑based algorithms that personalize content using user data.
- Removes Section 230(c)(1) immunity if that duty is breached and the harm is tied to the algorithm’s design or performance.
- Establishes a private right of action for compensatory and punitive damages; suits may be brought by injured people or legal representatives (including for minors or deceased persons).
- Bans predispute arbitration clauses and joint‑action (class action) waivers; courts—not arbitrators—decide applicability.
- Limits scope to for‑profit social media services with at least 1,000,000 registered users; excludes email, SMS/direct‑message‑only services, internal company platforms, teleconferencing tools, e‑commerce/review sites, music/podcast platforms, and sites whose primary purpose is news or sports coverage.
- Carves out chronological or reverse‑chronological feeds and the first page of user‑initiated search results (recommendations that follow are still covered).
- States that enforcement cannot be based on the viewpoint of protected speech and includes standard severability and state‑law preservation language.
- Updates cross‑references in several federal statutes to reflect the new numbering of Section 230.
Who’s For It
- Sponsors: Rep. Mike Kennedy (R‑UT) and Rep. April McClain Delaney (D‑MD).
- Backers’ rationale (as reflected in the text and title): increase accountability for algorithm design when it leads to serious offline harms, and give victims a clear path to seek damages.
Who’s Against It
No formal opposition is listed in the bill text. Based on recurring debates around Section 230 and algorithmic liability, here are the likely lines of criticism (not yet tied to specific groups):
- Risk of over‑removal or less personalization if platforms fear lawsuits, potentially degrading user experience.
- Unclear “reasonable care” standard could invite broad litigation and raise compliance costs, favoring the largest incumbents.
- Free‑expression concerns if platforms change ranking to avoid liability, affecting how lawful content is surfaced.
- Questions about causation: proving that an algorithm’s design—rather than user behavior or third‑party conduct—“foreseeably” led to a specific injury.
What’s Next
Introduced on November 21, 2025, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce the same day. Next steps typically include hearings and a committee markup; if approved, it would move to a House floor vote, then to the Senate, and finally to the President if both chambers pass it. Timeline and changes are uncertain.
Discussion