Overview
Title
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require electronic communication service providers and remote computing services to report to the Attorney General certain controlled substances violations.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8918 is a bill that would require internet companies to tell the government if they see people using their services to do bad things with drugs like fentanyl and meth. If these companies don't tell or make a mistake, they could have to pay a lot of money.
Summary AI
H.R. 8918, known as the "Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act," proposes changes to the Controlled Substances Act. It mandates that electronic communication service providers and remote computing services report suspected violations involving certain controlled substances, such as fentanyl and methamphetamine, to the Attorney General. The bill outlines the specific reporting requirements, including the type of information to be submitted and the duties of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Attorney General in handling these reports. It also provides for penalties for providers that fail to comply with the reporting obligations or submit false information.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill, designated as H. R. 8918, proposes amendments to the Controlled Substances Act with the aim of curbing illegal activities related to certain controlled substances. The legislation specifically targets electronic communication service providers and remote computing services, requiring them to report any knowledge of drug-related crimes to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These crimes typically involve the illegal sale or distribution of substances such as fentanyl and methamphetamine. The bill establishes specific reporting requirements, outlines penalties for non-compliance, and features provisions to protect privacy while handling these reports.
Key Issues
Reporting Burdens
One significant issue with the bill is the imposing nature of its reporting requirements on service providers. Smaller companies, in particular, may find the compliance burdensome without compensation or support, potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, the requirement to report within 'as soon as reasonably possible' or not later than 60 days introduces ambiguity, which may lead to varied interpretations.
Penalties and Compliance
The heavy penalties for non-compliance—up to $190,000 for an initial violation and $380,000 for subsequent ones—could disproportionately impact smaller providers. This introduces concern about creating an uneven field where larger companies can more easily absorb direct financial impacts, potentially stifling competition.
Ambiguities and Privacy Concerns
The bill uses broad definitions, such as "provider," which could inadvertently include entities not well-prepared to comply with its requirements. This, coupled with subjective terms like "reasonable belief," could lead to inconsistent application and enforcement.
Moreover, the demand for 'any other identifying information' in reports raises privacy concerns. These requirements could risk infringing individual privacy rights without well-defined guidelines, causing apprehensions about potential overreach.
Exemptions and Loopholes
The bill exempts broadband and text messaging providers, which could create unintended loopholes. Such exemptions might allow certain violations to go unreported, undermining the bill's intent to comprehensively monitor and track illegal drug activities.
Data Disclosure
Another area of concern is the broad discretion allowed to law enforcement regarding data disclosure. Without stringent oversight, there is a risk of privacy violations and potential misuse of sensitive information.
Public Impact
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, the bill's intent is promising as it aims to control the proliferation of illegal drugs, which poses a significant safety and health risk. Efficient oversight and regulation can contribute to a safer environment by potentially reducing drug-related crimes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Providers of electronic communication and remote computing services may find the law challenging, especially smaller firms without the resources to effectively comply with the new requirements. The expected financial and operational burdens could stifle innovation and lead to negative economic consequences within the tech industry.
Conversely, larger firms with existing monitoring and reporting infrastructure might be better positioned to adapt, but they too will need to be vigilant about privacy implications to maintain users' trust.
Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies could benefit from more structured and potentially richer data to aid investigations into drug-related activities, improving their operational effectiveness.
Overall, the proposed legislation represents a focused effort to bolster monitoring and reporting mechanisms regarding controlled substances. However, its success will depend on careful implementation, balancing enforcement efficiency with privacy and burden considerations.
Financial Assessment
The financial implications outlined in H.R. 8918, also known as the "Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act," are predominantly concerned with penalties levied against electronic communication service providers and remote computing services that fail to adhere to the bill's mandates. Although the bill does not allocate any federal spending or appropriations directly, it does establish financial penalties which are crucial for understanding the broader impact of the legislation.
Financial Penalties
The bill imposes various penalties on providers as a means of enforcement:
Criminal Penalties: Providers that knowingly fail to submit a required report can face fines up to $190,000 for an initial violation, and up to $380,000 for subsequent violations. These penalties are intended to serve as a deterrent against non-compliance but may disproportionately affect smaller providers who could find these fines burdensome relative to larger corporations.
Civil Penalties: In addition to criminal penalties, providers can be held liable for knowingly submitting reports that contain false or fraudulent information, with fines ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. This creates a significant financial risk for companies in the event of errors in reporting, which might be particularly challenging for providers without sophisticated compliance systems.
Relation to Identified Issues
Impact on Smaller Providers: These financial penalties could create substantial challenges for smaller service providers, as highlighted in the issues identified. Smaller entities may lack the resources to absorb such fines or the infrastructure to ensure complete compliance with the reporting requirements. As a result, they could face a competitive disadvantage compared to larger, better-funded corporations that can better manage the risk of financial penalties.
Ambiguity and Subjectivity: The subjectivity around terms like "reasonable belief" or "actual knowledge" could lead to inconsistent application of financial penalties, further complicating matters for service providers trying to comply with the law. These ambiguities could result in increased legal challenges, which might add to financial burdens for providers.
Encouraging Compliance and Ensuring Fairness: While the fines serve an important role in motivating compliance, they might discourage participation or innovation among providers, particularly smaller players. The financial implications thus have broader industry and economic impacts beyond mere punishment for non-compliance.
In summary, H.R. 8918 relies heavily on financial penalties to enforce compliance but does not provide mechanisms for financial support or adjustments that could alleviate the burden on smaller providers. This approach creates potential issues of fairness and market distortion, as well as challenges related to compliance costs that are not directly addressed by the bill.
Issues
The bill's reporting requirements (Section 2) could impose significant burdens on electronic communication service providers and remote computing services, especially smaller ones, without financial compensation or support, leading to potentially unfair disadvantages in competition. This concern is exacerbated by the stringent time requirements ('as soon as reasonably possible' and 'not later than 60 days'), which may be ambiguous (Section 521(b)(1)).
The penalties for non-compliance (Section 521(f)) are steep and may disproportionately affect smaller providers, potentially favoring larger corporations who can absorb such fines more easily. This could create an uneven playing field in the industry.
The bill's broad definitions, such as 'provider' (Section 521(a)(4)), could unintentionally include entities not equipped to comply, leading to burdens on smaller or unrelated organizations, which might hinder business operations and innovation.
The privacy implications of mandating the inclusion of 'any other identifying information' (Section 521(c)(1)(A)) in reports are concerning. Without clear guidelines on permissible data, this requirement could infringe on individual privacy rights.
The language around 'reasonable belief' and 'reasonable measures' (Section 521(b)(3) and (e)(3)(A)) is subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement and increased legal challenges due to varying interpretations.
The exception allowing broadband and text messaging providers to be exempt from reporting (Section 521(l)) could create significant loopholes, thereby undermining the bill's objective to monitor and report controlled substances violations comprehensively.
The provision for broad discretion in law enforcement's data disclosure (Section 521(h)) raises significant privacy concerns due to the potential for misuse or overreach without stringent oversight and guidelines.
The bill does not address the potential for overwhelming or duplicate reports causing administrative inefficiencies for the Drug Enforcement Administration (Sections 521(b)(1) and (d)), possibly resulting in wasted resources and delayed responses to legitimate cases.
The requirement that providers monitor, report, and store detailed information assumes they possess the necessary mechanisms and technical capabilities (Section 521(b)(1)), which may not be true, particularly for smaller providers lacking resources.
The lack of a clear definition of 'actual knowledge' (Section 521(g)(4)) could lead to different interpretations, resulting in inconsistent legal standards and potential exploitation of these ambiguities by providers to avoid 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 short title of this Act is the “Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act.”
2. Reporting requirements of electronic communication service providers and remote computing services for certain controlled substances violations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Controlled Substances Act to require electronic communication service providers and remote computing services to report illegal activities related to certain controlled substances, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, to the Drug Enforcement Administration. It outlines the specific reporting requirements, potential penalties for non-compliance, privacy protections, and the responsibilities of the Attorney General and DEA in handling these reports.
Money References
- “(B) PENALTY.—A provider that violates subparagraph (A) shall be fined— “(i) in the case of an initial violation, not more than $190,000; and “(ii) in the case of any second or subsequent violation, not more than $380,000. “(2) CIVIL PENALTY.—In addition to any other available civil or criminal penalty, a provider shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty in an amount not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000 if the provider knowingly submits a report under subsection (b) that— “(A) contains materially false or fraudulent information; or “(B) omits information described in subsection (c)(1)(A) that is reasonably available.
521. Reporting requirements of electronic communication service providers and remote computing services for certain controlled substances violations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section requires electronic communication service providers and remote computing services to report any knowledge of certain drug-related crimes, like the illegal sale or distribution of fentanyl or methamphetamine, to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) within 60 days. The law also outlines penalties for non-compliance, rules for handling and preserving reports, and mandates the DEA to review and possibly investigate the reports, while protecting privacy and limiting the sharing of information.
Money References
- — (A) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful for a provider to knowingly fail to submit a report required under subsection (b)(1). (B) PENALTY.—A provider that violates subparagraph (A) shall be fined— (i) in the case of an initial violation, not more than $190,000; and (ii) in the case of any second or subsequent violation, not more than $380,000. (2) CIVIL PENALTY.—In addition to any other available civil or criminal penalty, a provider shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty in an amount not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000 if the provider knowingly submits a report under subsection (b) that— (A) contains materially false or fraudulent information; or (B) omits information described in subsection (c)(1)(A) that is reasonably available.
3. Severability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If any part of this Act is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the Act will still remain in effect and continue to be applied.