Congress mandates algorithmic transparency: companies must test for bias, disclose to FTC.
H.R. 5511 — Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025 · Filed by Yvette Clarke (D-NY) · 32 cosponsors · Introduced Sep 19, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to establish rules forcing large tech companies and AI developers to conduct and document 'impact assessments' of algorithms that make or influence critical decisions affecting consumers' access to jobs, housing, credit, healthcare, education, and other essential services. Companies must test for bias, document how they consulted with affected communities, disclose data sources, and report findings to the FTC; the FTC will publish a searchable public database of these assessments so consumers and researchers can see which algorithms affect them and how to appeal decisions.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a regulatory mandate requiring impact assessments and public disclosure of algorithmic decision-making in critical domains. It is fundamentally a transparency and accountability measure, not a subsidy, carve-out, or deregulation.
What the text implies
- The bill creates a new FTC Bureau of Technology with 50+ specialized staff and 25 additional enforcement personnel, substantially expanding FTC capacity and budget — a structural shift in regulatory power that may outlast this specific mandate.
- The public repository will expose algorithmic decision-making systems to competitive and security scrutiny; companies may face pressure to limit transparency or relocate algorithmic development to avoid disclosure, creating a potential regulatory arbitrage incentive.
- The 'to the extent possible' language throughout creates safe harbors for companies claiming infeasibility (missing data, third-party opacity, lack of demographic information) — enforcement may turn on how strictly the FTC interprets these escape clauses.
- State attorneys general gain independent enforcement authority under parens patriae, creating a patchwork of state-level algorithmic regulation and potential for conflicting standards across jurisdictions.
- The bill does not explicitly authorize private rights of action; consumers cannot sue directly for violations, only the FTC and state AGs can enforce — limiting individual remedies to whatever the FTC chooses to pursue.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens gain enforceable rights to know when algorithms affect critical life decisions, to contest those decisions, and to see documented evidence of algorithmic bias and harms. The bill creates accountability mechanisms (impact assessments, public repository, FTC enforcement) that did not exist before, shifting power from opaque corporate systems toward consumer transparency and recourse.
Named in the bill
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Artificial Intelligence Initiative, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Bureau of Technology (new FTC bureau), Bureau of Consumer Protection (FTC), State attorneys general
Where it stands
32 cosponsors: 32 Democrats.
- Sep 19, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Sep 19, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 6 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $7,895,837 in lobbying spend. A filing names 39 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 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Yvette Clarke, the sponsor, reported $626,107 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Council of Life Insurers — $4,085,837 on 3 filings
- American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
- Transamerica Companies — $200,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (43,345 characters) on Sep 27, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress mandates algorithmic transparency: companies must test for bias, disclose to FTC.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr5511 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.