Overview
Title
To require any person that maintains an internet website or that sells or distributes a mobile application that is owned, wholly or partially, by the Chinese Communist Party or by a non-state-owned entity located in the People’s Republic of China, to disclose that fact to any individual who downloads or otherwise uses such website or application.
ELI5 AI
Some people who make websites or phone apps need to let everyone know if they are owned by China or certain companies there. They have to tell the truth and the people in charge will check they do it right.
Summary AI
H.R. 784, titled the “Internet Application Integrity and Disclosure Act,” aims to require individuals or companies that own, provide, or control websites or mobile apps partially or wholly owned by the Chinese Communist Party or non-state entities in China to inform users in the U.S. of these connections. The bill states that any entities must clearly disclose this information to users who download or use these applications. It also makes providing false information a violation, and the Federal Trade Commission will enforce these requirements as part of its authority over unfair or deceptive practices. The act is set to take effect 180 days after it becomes law.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill at hand, titled the Internet Application Integrity and Disclosure Act, aims to enhance transparency concerning digital platforms owned by entities linked to the Chinese government. Specifically, it mandates that any person or business operating a website or mobile application that is owned, either in part or wholly, by the Chinese Communist Party, or a non-state-owned entity in China, must disclose this ownership to users in the United States. This requirement stresses the importance of users knowing the origin of the digital services they engage with. Enforcement of the bill falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), treating non-compliances as deceptive or unfair practices.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several critical issues arise from the bill's text:
Vagueness in Disclosure Requirements: The bill mandates that ownership disclosures must be "clear and conspicuous." However, it does not specify how to achieve this clarity, potentially leading to varied and inconsistent implementations which could undermine the law's effectiveness.
Ambiguity in Scope: The term "non-state-owned entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China" lacks precise definition, complicating efforts to determine which entities fall within the bill's jurisdiction.
Enforcement Complexities: While the bill allows the FTC to enforce these requirements, it heavily leans on pre-existing definitions of unfair or deceptive acts, which may not be adequately specific for new digital contexts.
Undefined Penalties: The bill does not clearly outline penalties for non-compliance, which could result in weak deterrence against violations.
Exclusion Issues: By defining "individual" as a natural person residing in the U.S., the bill may inadvertently exclude temporary residents, such as international students, from its protective measures.
Effective Date Ambiguity: The effective date is set as 180 days post-enactment, which might lead to confusion without a clearly documented enactment date.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill seeks to inform and protect the public by ensuring they have the knowledge of who controls the digital platforms they use, helping them make more informed decisions about their data and privacy. If implemented effectively, it could cultivate greater awareness among users, making them more conscious of the potential security implications of using platforms tied to foreign governments.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Consumers: Users of digital services will potentially benefit from increased transparency. Being informed about ownership ties to foreign governments could influence how they engage with these digital platforms and prioritize their data privacy.
Digital Platform Providers: For companies and individuals involved in the development or distribution of apps and websites, this bill introduces new compliance requirements. Those with connections to Chinese entities may face additional scrutiny and public perception challenges, which could impact business choices and market strategy.
Regulatory Authorities: Agencies like the FTC will see an expansion in their enforcement obligations. However, they might also face challenges due to the broad and sometimes vague language of the bill, necessitating clear guidelines for enforcement.
In summary, while the bill holds the potential to enhance digital transparency, its current iteration may struggle with implementation and enforcement effectiveness due to vague language and incomplete penalty structures.
Issues
The 'Chinese ownership disclosure requirements' in Section 2 are vague about how disclosures must be made 'clearly and conspicuously,' which creates implementation challenges and could undermine the legislative intent of ensuring transparency about Chinese ownership.
Section 3's reliance on existing Federal Trade Commission powers makes it potentially complex to enforce due to the vague definition of 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices,' which might cause interpretational issues without clear examples.
There is no mention of penalties or enforcement mechanisms in Section 2 for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements, which could lead to lack of compliance and undermine the effectiveness of the law.
The term 'non-state-owned entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China' in Section 2 may be ambiguous and could cover a broader or narrower range of entities than intended, thus requiring further clarification.
The broad language in Section 3 'Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of the Federal Trade Commission under any other provision of law' might result in interpretive challenges or conflicts with other acts, affecting the consistency and clarity of enforcement.
Section 4's definition of 'individual' as 'a natural person residing in the United States' could raise legal or ethical concerns for excluding temporary residents, such as international students or expatriates, from the protections intended by the Act.
Section 5 specifies an effective date based on a timeframe relative to the date of enactment, which could create confusion if the enactment date is incorrectly recorded or communicated, leading to potential delays in compliance.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Internet Application Integrity and Disclosure Act, also called the Internet Application I.D. Act, is the official name of this legislative act.
2. Chinese ownership disclosure requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Any person who owns or distributes a website or app in the U.S. that is partially or fully owned by the Chinese Communist Party or a non-state-owned Chinese entity must clearly inform users about this ownership. It is illegal to knowingly provide false information about this ownership.
3. Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that if someone breaks this law, it's considered the same as breaking rules against unfair or deceptive practices set by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC will enforce this law using its usual powers, and violators will face penalties similar to other FTC cases. The FTC retains all its normal authorities outside of this specific law.
4. Individual defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the Act, an “individual” is defined as a person who lives in the United States.
5. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that the Act will become effective 180 days after it is officially enacted.