A commercial-purpose boundary.
Commercial collection, processing or disclosure would not give rise to claims or enforcement under covered federal or state pen-register, wiretapping, trap-and-trace or eavesdropping laws, including CIPA.
H.R. 10263 · Halt Abusive Internet Lawsuits Act of 2026
What the HAIL Act would change.
We support clearer federal rules for commercial website tools. Here is the proposal—and its effect on existing legal claims.
Introduced, not enacted · Official record checked September 25, 2026.
Representative Russ Fulcher introduced the bill September 3; it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Follow the Congress.gov record.
Representative Russ Fulcher introduced the bill September 3; it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Follow the Congress.gov record.
More than analytics.
The definitions encompass business operations, marketing, consumer input and transactions. Named tools include cookies, pixels, session replay, chatbots, tags and analytics.
Pending proceedings, too.
Covered proceedings already underway could no longer be maintained, adjudicated or arbitrated after enactment.
Summary of the introduced text, §2. This is broader than a small-business exception or a rule limited to claims a court finds frivolous.
Our position
Why we support a federal response.
A website is part of an ordinary working day. Understanding demand and receiving customer requests should come with rules a business can understand before a dispute begins.
Predictability before a claim
Responding can require money and attention before a court resolves the underlying questions. We favor a clear rule that owners and providers can apply when choosing and configuring tools.
A national question
Websites connect businesses and customers across state lines. We support Congress addressing the covered federal and state rules together, rather than leaving this question entirely to case-by-case litigation.
A boundary worth examining
HAIL uses commercial purpose as its boundary. That is a broader policy choice than exempting a few tools or only small businesses. We support that approach and explain its consequences openly.
These are the project’s policy judgments. Owner accounts describe individual experiences; they do not prove every claim lacks merit. Read related public reform positions.
What if someone suffers actual harm?
The introduced bill has no express exception preserving a covered claim whenever a person proves actual harm. That is a material part of the proposal.
Today: a possible CIPA remedy
California Penal Code §637.2 authorizes civil relief for qualifying CIPA violations, including statutory damages and injunctions. Proof of actual damages is not a prerequisite.
A plaintiff must still establish a viable claim. No actual damages does not mean no privacy injury. Read §637.2.
Under HAIL: covered routes close
For conduct within the bill’s commercial-purpose rule, the covered claim or enforcement action would be barred. The text does not make that result depend on business size, consent or proof of harm.
The bill also reaches covered government enforcement; it is not limited to private lawsuits. Read §2(a).
Other laws are not a guaranteed replacement.
The text does not repeal every privacy law or create a replacement remedy. Whether a different claim remains available depends on the facts, that law’s requirements and the bill’s application. We do not promise every injured person the same route to court.
The text does not repeal every privacy law or create a replacement remedy. Whether a different claim remains available depends on the facts, that law’s requirements and the bill’s application. We do not promise every injured person the same route to court.
The questions behind the proposal.
Why not rely only on better consent practices?
Consent and careful configuration can matter under existing law. Our concern is also the expense of resolving disputed legal interpretations. Supporting a legislative change does not make current obligations disappear or establish that any particular setup complies.
Why not limit the change to small businesses or actual damages?
Those would be narrower legislative choices. HAIL instead uses commercial purpose and includes covered enforcement. Whether that breadth is justified is a substantive policy question; the text should not be described as containing exceptions it does not include.
Does ordinary analytics automatically violate the law?
No. A tool’s name alone does not determine legality. The data collected, consent, recipients and asserted legal theory matter. A filed claim is an allegation, not a finding. See the court examples.
Does HAIL settle every website-privacy question?
No. Its terms address particular surveillance-law claims and enforcement. It should not be presented as a universal exemption from all privacy obligations.
Why is SB 690 not the same solution?
California’s enrolled measure changes a particular civil-action route for online pen-register claims. HAIL covers a broader group of federal and state laws, and covered enforcement as well as private claims. Compare the texts and dated status.
Where are the supporting organizations?
Our public positions directory identifies documented federal-reform advocacy and SB 690 support separately. Only statements about this exact federal bill will be labeled HAIL endorsements.