H.R. 10263 · Halt Abusive Internet Lawsuits Act of 2026
We support the HAIL Act’s effort to establish a federal rule for commercial data practices under wiretapping and related surveillance laws. This page explains the introduced proposal, why the coalition supports it and the questions raised by its scope.
Representative Russ Fulcher introduced H.R. 10263 on September 3, 2026; it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Official record checked 2026-09-27. Official status.
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 the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
The definitions encompass business operations, marketing, consumer input and transactions. Named tools include cookies, pixels, session replay, chatbots, tags and analytics.
Covered proceedings already underway could no longer be maintained, adjudicated or arbitrated after enactment.
Summary of the introduced text, §2.
A business should be able to understand its legal obligations before it receives a demand letter. When contesting a disputed claim costs more than settling it, even an owner who believes the business complied with the law may feel compelled to pay.
We support the HAIL Act because it would establish a federal rule for commercial data use under specified wiretapping and related laws. Its approach reaches beyond one technology or one state, addressing a recurring source of disputes rather than requiring businesses to resolve the same underlying question through separate lawsuits.
Our goal is to Halt Abusive Internet Lawsuits while keeping businesses accountable for their use of personal information.
The bill would remove covered claims and enforcement routes for commercial-purpose practices. It is not limited to small businesses or to claims without alleged harm. Other privacy and consumer protection laws can continue to apply, but their coverage, enforcement and remedies differ.
Our position is that clear rules for responsible digital commerce can reduce litigation uncertainty while preserving meaningful accountability. That objective should be assessed against the bill’s text, including what it would change for people seeking a remedy.
The introduced rule affects covered private claims and government enforcement, including pending proceedings. It is not conditioned on consent and does not create a replacement remedy.
No. The introduced text does not condition its commercial-purpose rule on business size. Smaller businesses help illustrate the practical concern, but the proposal is broader.
No. The rule turns on the activity and laws it covers, not a case-by-case finding that a claim is abusive.
Yes. Laws outside the exemption can still apply, including applicable state privacy requirements and the FTC’s authority over unfair or deceptive practices. Those routes are not interchangeable with every claim the bill would remove.
Privacy advocates have raised concerns about removing private enforcement and ending pending claims. For example, CDT opposed an amended version of California’s SB 690 on those grounds. That statement concerns SB 690; it should not be treated as a documented position on the federal HAIL Act. Privacy advocacy perspective on SB 690.
No. The tool’s name alone does not resolve the question. The information involved, consent, recipients and particular legal theory matter.
Consent and careful configuration can matter under existing law. Our concern is also the expense of resolving disputed legal interpretations. Businesses still need to comply with current 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.
No. Its terms address particular surveillance-law claims and enforcement. Other privacy obligations can still apply.
The coalition page lists member organizations, followed by published statements. Statements supporting HAIL are identified separately from broader federal-reform advocacy and support for SB 690.
Governor Newsom signed SB 690 on September 30, 2026. Effective January 1, 2027, it limits one category of private CIPA claim while leaving §§631 and 632 unchanged. Read what changed and what remains.
Compare the HAIL Act and California SB 690 across covered provisions, enforcement, pending cases and effective dates.
Share the briefing, review the bill text and ask how Congress can provide clearer rules for digital commerce while maintaining effective privacy protections.
