H.R. 10300House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

Big Tech Accountability Act

Sponsored byJames P. McGovernD-MA-2Introduced Sep 4, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 4, 2026) — on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

5 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay29d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
6
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Nay29d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
5
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay29d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. None of that is settled by the summary.
5
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Nay29d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
1
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Yea29d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. None of that is settled by the summary.
Your position on H.R. 10300No positions yet