Bill Number: HR 6266 | Origin Chamber: House | Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. | Policy Area: Science, Technology, Communications
Social media liable for algorithmic harm; allows user lawsuits.
Mr. Kennedy of Utah, Mrs. McClain Delaney
Introduced in House, referred to committee.
This bill proposes to change Section 230 of the Communications Act, making large social media companies legally responsible if their recommendation algorithms cause foreseeable bodily harm or death. It allows individuals who suffer such harm to sue platforms for damages. The bill was introduced by Mr. Kennedy of Utah and Mrs. McClain Delaney and is currently under review by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on November 21, 2025, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. For it to advance, the committee would need to consider and approve it. If passed by the committee, it would then be eligible for a vote by the full House of Representatives.
If enacted, large social media platforms (those with over 1 million users and not primarily direct messaging, commerce, or review sites) would need to be more careful in designing their recommendation algorithms. If you or someone you know suffers bodily injury or death directly caused by a platform's algorithm that should have been foreseen, you could take legal action against the company in federal court. Furthermore, any agreements you made with social media companies to resolve disputes through arbitration or class action waivers would not be valid for these specific types of claims, allowing you to go to court.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue this bill holds social media companies accountable for harmful algorithmic designs.
Critics Say
Critics might worry it could stifle platform innovation or lead to over-censorship of content.
Those in favor would likely argue that social media companies currently enjoy broad immunity under Section 230, which allows their algorithms to promote content that can lead to real-world harm without consequence. This bill aims to change that by creating a clear 'duty of care.' Opponents, however, might express concerns that such liability could force platforms to become overly cautious, leading them to remove more content to avoid lawsuits, potentially impacting free speech or making algorithms less engaging or innovative. They might also argue that determining direct causation of harm from an algorithm is complex.