Cable and satellite TV providers must now refund subscribers during blackouts.

What it does

This bill requires the FCC to write rules forcing cable and satellite TV providers to issue rebates to subscribers whenever those providers black out sports or other video programming during contract disputes with broadcasters or content owners. The rebate amount will be set by FCC regulation. Subscribers benefit by receiving partial refunds when channels they paid for go dark; providers face new compliance costs.

Why we flagged it

The bill creates a consumer remedy (rebates) for a specific market failure (blackouts during content negotiations). It does not deregulate or subsidize; it adds a consumer-protection mechanism to existing FCC authority over video programming disputes.

What the text implies

• FCC must define 'appropriate amount' of rebate with no statutory floor or ceiling — regulatory discretion may result in rebates too small to deter blackouts or too large to be administratively feasible.
• Rebate obligation applies only to blackouts caused by 'covered negotiations' (retransmission consent or carriage disputes), not to other service interruptions, creating a narrow remedy that may not cover all subscriber losses.
• Providers may pass rebate costs to all subscribers through higher base rates, potentially socializing the cost of disputes across the entire customer base rather than isolating it to affected periods.
• No explicit enforcement mechanism, penalty structure, or private right of action stated in the bill — effectiveness depends entirely on FCC rulemaking and enforcement discretion.

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

Who it affects

Subscribers who lose access to programming they contracted for gain a direct financial remedy (rebates) without having to sue or negotiate individually. Providers retain the ability to negotiate with broadcasters but must now compensate customers for blackout periods, shifting some negotiation leverage back to consumers and reducing the cost of service disruptions.

Who stands to gain

• TV subscribers (direct rebate recipients)
• Broadcasters and content providers (indirectly, by reducing provider leverage in negotiations)

Named in the bill

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Cable operators, Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers, Television broadcast stations, Content providers

Where it stands

7 cosponsors: 7 Democrats.

• Jan 31, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 31, 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 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $13,230,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 26 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.

Patrick Ryan, the sponsor, reported $497,046 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Ncta - the Internet & Television Association — $6,870,000 on 2 filings
• Charter Communications Inc — $5,020,000 on 2 filings
• Fox Corporation — $1,340,000 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.