Free online access to safety standards—but only if you read them on their site

What it does

This bill protects copyright holders' ability to sell technical and safety standards even after those standards are incorporated into law by reference. It requires standards organizations to make incorporated standards freely available online (read-only, with searchable indexes) within a reasonable time, and shifts the burden of proof to anyone challenging whether they complied. A companion study will examine how much governments spend acquiring these standards.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a copyright-retention rule conditioned on free online access. It is framed as a public-access measure but functions primarily to preserve standards organizations' copyright and revenue model while imposing a specific access obligation.

What the text implies

• The 'reasonable period of time' standard for posting is undefined and unenforceable without litigation, creating a compliance loophole for standards orgs.
• Read-only online access does not permit downloading, printing, or offline use—citizens can read but cannot easily reference standards while working or in offline contexts.
• The burden-of-proof shift means citizens/governments must affirmatively prove non-compliance; standards orgs need not demonstrate they tried to comply.
• The bill does not address the cost to governments of acquiring standards for internal use, licensing, or training—only the public's right to read online.
• Standards orgs retain full ability to charge industry, professionals, and governments for subscriptions, licensing, and derivative works; the bill protects that revenue stream.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain a concrete right to read standards incorporated into law for free online, addressing a real transparency gap (laws reference standards the public cannot afford to buy). However, the bill's core mechanism protects copyright holders' revenue model and does not require full free distribution—only read-only online access—leaving paid subscriptions and industry licensing intact. The burden-of-proof shift favors standards orgs, making enforcement difficult.

Who stands to gain

• standards development organizations (copyright protection retained, revenue model preserved)
• professional and industry subscribers (standards orgs can continue charging them)

Named in the bill

standards development organizations, Office of Management and Budget (OMB Circular A-119), Comptroller General of the United States, Federal, State, and local governments, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 508)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.

• Jun 13, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jun 13, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

9 lobbying clients named this bill on 14 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,167,887 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 89% of bills with at least one filing.

Darrell Issa, the sponsor, reported $335,200 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Asme — $470,887 on 2 filings
• Ulse Inc. D/b/a Ul Standards & Engagement — $300,000 on 2 filings
• Compressed Gas Association, Inc. — $90,000 on 1 filing
• American Concrete Institute — $80,000 on 1 filing
• International Association of Fire Chiefs — $70,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.