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.
Why we support it.
Owners use website tools to attract customers, understand demand and manage service requests. Legal uncertainty over those tools can impose costs before the merits are resolved.
We believe a federal commercial-purpose rule is warranted. Reported business accounts put a concrete cost beside that policy choice. The scope of the proposed rule deserves equally clear treatment.
See how it differs from California’s SB 690What 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.
Keep the distinctions clear.
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?
A directory will be added once statements supporting this specific federal bill are verified. Support for SB 690 alone will not be presented as HAIL support.