Summary#
The Defending Against Foreign Propaganda Act is a bill that would create a federal disclosure rule; it does not amend a named Act. Its stated goal is to require disclosures on advertisements paid for by foreign governments or foreign persons. The supplied status says it was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; it is not law.
- A person could not disseminate a covered advertisement to a consumer without disclosing who paid for it.
- For an ad with sound, the disclosure must be spoken. For an ad with printed language, it must appear in print. For a video ad, it must be both spoken and printed.
- If a foreign person paid for the ad, the disclosure must identify, as applicable, the country of that person’s citizenship or the country where the person has its main place of business.
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would enforce the rule using its powers under the FTC Act. A violation would be treated as a violation of a rule about unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
What it means for you#
- Consumers: Covered ads would have to identify foreign-government or foreign-person funding. The bill does not ban the ads or require a change to their content beyond the disclosure.
- People or organizations disseminating ads: They would be responsible for ensuring the required disclosure is included. The text applies to a person who disseminates an ad, not only to the person who paid for it.
- Foreign persons paying for ads: Their country information would have to be disclosed as applicable. “Foreign person” includes an alien and an organization or other combination of persons whose main place of business is in a foreign country.
- FTC: The agency would enforce the requirement under the FTC Act. The bill does not set out a separate complaint, review, or appeal process.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill would require covered ad disseminators to add disclosures, but gives no estimate of their compliance costs.
- It gives the FTC an enforcement role but provides no estimate of added staffing, funding, or enforcement costs.
- Violators would be subject to penalties under the FTC Act; the bill text does not state a penalty amount.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “advertisement,” “consumer,” or what it means for an ad to be “paid for” by a foreign government or foreign person.
- It does not specify the exact wording, size, placement, or timing of a disclosure.
- It does not explain how to determine who paid for an ad when there are multiple funders or intermediaries.
- It does not set out exceptions or explain how the rule would interact with other laws governing advertising or foreign-funded communications.
- The supplied material does not include the FTC Act, so the specific penalties and enforcement procedures that would apply cannot be verified here.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that consumers should be told when foreign governments or foreign persons paid for an advertisement.
- Requiring disclosures in the ad itself could make the funding source visible while people encounter the ad.
- Using the FTC’s existing enforcement powers could place enforcement with a federal agency already named in the bill, rather than creating a new agency.
Case against#
- The bill does not define key terms or explain how to identify the payer, which could make it unclear who must comply.
- It does not specify how noticeable or clear a disclosure must be, so the rule’s practical effect on consumers is uncertain.
- Because the duty applies to anyone who disseminates an ad, a person who did not pay for it may still face uncertainty about how to check its funding.
- The bill assigns enforcement to the FTC without stating what additional resources, if any, the agency would receive.