Bill · S. 2455· Senate(119-S-2455)
TRAIN Act
- Introduced
- 7/24/2025
- Last activity
- 7/24/2025 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Peter Welch
- Cosponsors
- - 1 - 2
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "TRAIN Act" seeks to create a new administrative subpoena process within United States copyright law. This process allows copyright owners to request subpoenas to investigate if their specific works were used to train generative artificial intelligence models. A developer receiving such a subpoena must expeditiously provide copies or records that identify the works used. The bill limits these requests to the requester's own copyrighted material. It also establishes rules for confidentiality and provides for sanctions in cases of bad faith requests.
Yes· 3 of 5
Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer?+6
The bill strengthens the rights of copyright owners to monitor and enforce their intellectual property against AI developers.
Would business owners be better off under this?+5
The bill benefits creative professionals and businesses that rely on copyright protection for their livelihood.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+4
The bill increases transparency by requiring AI developers to disclose whether specific copyrighted works were used in training.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Assistance for Copyright Owners: The bill allows the legal or beneficial owner of a copyright to determine if their work was used to train an artificial intelligence model (Section 2(b)(1)). This helps owners protect their rights by providing a mechanism to identify if their material was included in a training dataset (Section 2(c)(2)(B)).
-
Streamlined Discovery Process: If a proposed subpoena is in the proper form and the accompanying declaration is properly executed, the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the subpoena (Section 2(e)). This is intended to ensure the developer expeditiously discloses requested records (Section 2(d) and Section 2(f)).
-
Legal Presumption of Use: If a developer fails to comply with a subpoena, it creates a rebuttable presumption that the developer made copies of the copyrighted work (Section 2(i)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Risk of Sanctions for Bad Faith: If a legal or beneficial owner makes a subpoena request in bad faith, a court may impose sanctions on them (Section 2(j)(1)). These sanctions are implemented in the same manner as Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Section 2(j)(2)).
-
Confidentiality Restrictions: A person who receives copies or records from a developer through this process is prohibited from disclosing those materials to any other person without proper authorization or consent (Section 2(g)).
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
- Improves Intellectual Property Fairness+6
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+4Improves Due Process+2
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Business Owners+5
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+3
- 7/24/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Josh HawleyRepublican · Missouri
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California