Bill · H.R. 3921· House(119-HR-3921)
STOP CSAM Act of 2025
- Introduced
- 6/11/2025
- Last activity
- 6/11/2025 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Barry Moore
- Cosponsors
- - 19 - 11
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The STOP CSAM Act of 2025 aims to combat the sexual exploitation of children by increasing accountability for the tech industry. It updates federal laws to expand protections for child victims and witnesses in court proceedings, including clearer definitions of psychological abuse and exploitation. The bill mandates stricter reporting requirements for digital service providers to the NCMEC CyberTipline. It also establishes significant civil and criminal penalties for providers that fail to meet these obligations. Additionally, the act expands civil remedies, allowing victims to sue for damages against certain platforms and app stores. Finally, it includes provisions to facilitate the payment of restitution to victims.
Yes· 3 of 6
Would children be better off under this?+10
The bill significantly enhances the safety, privacy, and legal recourse for children victims of exploitation.
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?+8
The bill imposes stricter reporting, transparency, and legal liability requirements on large technology and social media providers.
Does this give people more control over their personal data?+6
The bill enhances the protection of sensitive personal information for child victims in judicial proceedings.
The opposite
Would business owners be better off under this?-5
Tech industry business owners face increased regulatory burdens and potential civil/criminal liabilities.
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?-2
Increased liability and reporting requirements may have a chilling effect on digital expression.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Protections for Victims in Court: The bill expands the definition of "protected information" to include personal details, medical records, and educational history, which helps safeguard the identities of victims and witnesses (Section 2, subsection a, paragraph 13 and 14).
-
Stronger Support for Victims' Views: It requires guardians ad litem to make efforts to report the views of child victims using forms appropriate for their age and ability (Section 2, subsection a, paragraph (f)(2)(B)).
-
Increased Accountability for Tech Providers: Service providers are now required to report facts regarding child sexual exploitation to the CyberTipline as soon as reasonably possible, and no later than 60 days after obtaining knowledge (Section 4, subsection a, paragraph (1)).
-
Expanded Legal Recourse for Victims: The bill creates a new private right of action, allowing victims of online sexual exploitation to sue for actual damages or liquidated damages of $300,000 against certain providers and app stores (Section 5, subsection b, paragraph (1)).
-
Financial Support for Victim Care: The act authorizes $25,000,000 annually for the United States courts to carry out provisions related to protecting child victims and witnesses (Section 2, subsection a, paragraph (5)(A)).
-
Restitution Protections: It allows for the appointment of a trustee or fiduciary to hold and administer restitution payments for the benefit of victims who are minors, incapacitated, or foreign citizens (Section 3, subsection (q)(1)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burdens on Tech Providers: Companies that fail to report exploitation or maintain required materials face significant criminal fines, reaching up to $1,000,000 or more if harm occurs, as well as civil penalties of up to $1,000,000 (Section 4, subsection e, paragraph (1) and (2)).
-
Strict Compliance Deadlines: Providers must submit reports within a specific timeframe (no later than 60 days), which places a strict administrative burden on the tech industry (Section 4, subsection a, paragraph (1)).
-
Increased Litigation Risks: By expanding civil remedies and allowing for punitive damages, the bill increases the likelihood of costly lawsuits against interactive computer services and app stores (Section 5, subsection b, paragraph (1) and (2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Education And Technology
- Increases Big Tech Regulation+8Improves Data Privacy+6
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Privacy Rights+5Increases Federal Power+4Improves Freedom Of Speech-2
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Children+10Good For Business Owners-5
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+5
- 10/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/19/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/17/2025
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 9/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/11/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Andy BiggsRepublican · Arizona
James BairdRepublican · Indiana
Tim BurchettRepublican · Tennessee
Angie CraigDemocrat · Minnesota
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Laura GillenDemocrat · New York
Brandon GillRepublican · Texas
Andy HarrisRepublican · Maryland
Wesley HuntRepublican · Texas
Mike HaridopolosRepublican · Florida
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Barry LoudermilkRepublican · Georgia
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
David SchweikertRepublican · Arizona
Melanie StansburyDemocrat · New Mexico
Derek SchmidtRepublican · Kansas
Suhas SubramanyamDemocrat · Virginia
William TimmonsRepublican · South Carolina
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Jefferson Van DrewRepublican · New Jersey
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia
Matt Van EppsRepublican · Tennessee
Robert WittmanRepublican · Virginia
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California