Copyright owners get easy subpoena power over AI training data—with minimal oversight.
S. 2455 — TRAIN Act · Filed by Peter Welch (D-VT) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 24, 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 creates a legal mechanism allowing copyright owners to subpoena AI developers and demand disclosure of which copyrighted works were used to train their AI models. A copyright owner files a sworn declaration with a court clerk stating they have a good-faith belief their work was used in training, and the clerk must issue the subpoena automatically if the paperwork is in order. The developer must then disclose copies or records identifying the training material, with confidentiality protections and sanctions available for bad-faith requests.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to establish an administrative subpoena process specifically for copyright owners to compel disclosure of training data used in AI models. It is not a ban, licensing scheme, or liability rule—it is a discovery tool with a very low threshold for issuance.
What the text implies
- The 'subjective good faith belief' standard requires no evidence or probable cause before a clerk must issue a subpoena—developers face mandatory disclosure obligations triggered by unverified assertions, creating asymmetric discovery risk.
- Developers must disclose 'all records' identifying training material, potentially exposing proprietary training datasets, model architecture details, and competitive sourcing strategies to copyright claimants who may be competitors.
- The rebuttable presumption that non-compliance equals infringement shifts burden to developers to prove they did NOT use a work, inverting normal copyright burden of proof and creating settlement pressure.
- No explicit limit on the number of subpoenas a single copyright owner can file, enabling serial harassment of developers and creating administrative burden disproportionate to small or open-source AI projects.
- Confidentiality duty applies only to the recipient of records; no restriction on the copyright owner's use of disclosed training data for competitive purposes, reverse engineering, or licensing leverage.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill creates a transparency mechanism that could help copyright owners (including individual creators) discover unauthorized use of their work, a genuine public benefit for creative rights. However, the extremely low threshold—a 'subjective good faith belief' with no judicial review before issuance—creates a tool for harassment, fishing expeditions, and competitive intelligence gathering that could burden AI developers with frivolous subpoenas and chill legitimate innovation, ultimately rais
Who stands to gain
- copyright holders and licensing entities
- entertainment and publishing companies
- litigation support and discovery service providers
Named in the bill
copyright owners, AI developers, generative AI model creators, US district courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Where it stands
3 cosponsors: 2 Republicans, 1 Democrats.
- Jul 24, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jul 24, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the 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
15 lobbying clients named this bill on 17 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,742,139 in lobbying spend. A filing names 9 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 95% of bills with at least one filing.
Peter Welch, the sponsor, reported $44,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Recording Industry Association of America — $2,206,361 on 1 filing
- News Media Alliance — $475,000 on 1 filing
- Sony Music Entertainment (formerly Known As Sony Bmg Music Entertainment) — $410,000 on 1 filing
- International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — $135,000 on 1 filing
- Recording Academy — $120,778 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 23, 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 (7,422 characters) on Aug 21, 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 23, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Copyright owners get easy subpoena power over AI training data—with minimal oversight.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s2455 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.