TAKE IT DOWN Act Passed by Congress, Heads to President's Desk

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a 409-2 vote, the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the "TAKE IT DOWN Act" (S. 146). The bill, which passed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate on February 13, now goes to President Donald Trump's desk for signature. 

As described in a January 16 press release by the Senate and House bills' sponsors, the TAKE IT DOWN Act “makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly publish [non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)] on social media and other online platforms. NCII is defined to include realistic, computer-generated pornographic images and videos ["deep forgeries"] that depict identifiable, real people." The bill has separate provisions and corresponding criminal penalties applicable to minors and adults, and it specifies that a victim consenting to the creation of an authentic image does not mean that the victim has consented to its publication.

 

Additionally, the TAKE IT DOWN Act includes a notice-and-takedown provision that requires social media and other public websites or internet services to establish procedures for the removal of NCII in response to a valid request from a victim, within 48 hours. Under the bill, websites also are required to make reasonable efforts to remove copies of the unauthorized images. Websites that make good faith efforts to remove NCII or disable access to it receive immunity from legal claims relating to such removal or disabled access. However, a website’s failure to comply with the notice-and-takedown requirements constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under the TAKE IT DOW ACT, the FTC has authority to enforce the notice-and-takedown requirements and impose penalties for non-compliance. 

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act appears to be a commonsense measure, carefully written, and reasonably necessary to address a serious problem that is nationwide in scope. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. Credit and congratulations are due to the bill's supporters and its sponsors.

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S.146) is sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar and Madeleine Dean are sponsors of the House companion bill (H.R.633). Senator Cruz, who is Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, talked about the TAKE IT DOWN Act during his keynote address at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference in Washington D.C. on March 25, 2025: 

NO FAKES Act to Combat "Deepfakes" is Reintroduced in Congress

On April 11, the "Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2025" or "NO FAKES Act" was re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2794) and Senate (S. 1367). The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar and the Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Christopher Coons. The NO FAKES Act would bolster individuals' intellectual property rights in their likenesses and voices by recognizing a private right of action against unauthorized and harmful "deepfakes." The bill has bipartisan backing as well as the endorsement of a cross-section of the creative and tech industries. The NO FAKES Act is strong on the merits and the 119th Congress should give it due consideration. 

 

Although generative AI technologies offer potential benefits, they also may be abused. Public displays and dissemination of "deepfake" songs misappropriate the value of recording artists’ voices, damaging the artists economically. Also, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and services on the Internet allow users to create "deepfake" explicit pictures and videos of individuals.

 

The NO FAKES Act would address those "deepfake" dangers in a targeted way by establishing a national uniform baseline of legal protection for an individual’s likeness and voice from unauthorized digital replicas. If passed by the 119th Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the Act would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly produces a digital replica without the consent of the rights owner. It also would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly publishes, reproduces, displays, distributes, transmits, or makes the digital replica available to the public without the rights owner's consent. Persons harmed under the Act would have a right to seek statutory or actual damages, recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. 

 

Recognizing the potential benefits of authorized digital replicas, the NO FAKES Act provides that individuals would have the right to license their personas for digital replication by third parties. Additionally, the Act is carefully written to address abuses and it includes safeguards for First Amendment-protected free speech and expression using generative AI tech. It bears emphasis that the NO FAKES Act is about private law – personal rights and intellectual property rights; it is not a federal criminal law bill.

 

A more detailed review of the same bill, previously introduced in the 118th Congress, is provided in my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The 'NO FAKES Act' Would Protect Americans' Rights Against Harmful Digital Replicas."

Public Safety Served by Enterprise Communications Networks, Not Public Utility Regulation

On March 31, AT&T and the FirstNet Authority announced that total connections to the FirstNet nationwide public safety broadband network increased to 7.1 million across 30,000 law enforcement and first responder agencies during the first quarter of 2025. FirstNet was constructed and is operated by AT&T, and it is overseen by FirstNet Authority, an agency in the NTIA.

As explained in my February 2024 blog post, "FirstNet's Public Safety Communications Network Continues to Grow,"widespread adoption by law enforcement and first responder agencies of FirstNet – as well as competing enterprise networks, such as VerizonFrontline and T-Mobile's T-Priority – undermines the Biden FCC's public safety rationale for its now-vacated public utility regulation of broadband Internet access services. 

 

In the Securing and Safeguarding the Open Internet Order (2024), the Commission officially rebranded public utility regulation as a public safety measure. Public utility regulation has a long history. However, the idea that public utility regulation was vital to public safety and national security appears to have been entirely unknown until late 2023, when the Biden FCC launched its efforts to impose such regulation on high-speed broadband Internet services under Title II of the Communications Act. What a coincidence!

 

The Securing and Safeguarding the Open Internet Order was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on January 2 of this year. In MCP No. 185 (2025), the court concluded that broadband Internet services are best understood as lightly regulated "information services" under Title I of the Act and not "telecommunications services" under Title II.

 

On April 28, the Free State Foundation filed reply comments in the FCC's Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding. In those reply comments, FSF President Randolph May and I recommended that the newly constituted FCC, under Chairman Brendan Carr's leadership, delete the now-vacated public utility rules from the Code of Federal Regulations. FSF's reply comments also recommend that the Commission delete many other outdated, harmful, and unnecessary regulations of communications services and close proceedings in which the agency previously had recommended additional regulations. FSF's initial comments in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding – focused on outdated, harmful, and unnecessary regulations of video services – were filed on April 11.

House Passes Bill for 6G Task Force and Report

On April 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a unanimous voice vote, H.R. 2449 – the "Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act" or the "Future Networks Act." Sponsored by Rep. Doris Matsui and co-sponsored by Reps. Rick Allen and Tim Walberg, the Future Networks Act, if it were to be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, would direct the FCC's Chairman to appoint a "6G Task Force" that would prepare and send to Congress a report on developing standards, uses, and related issues involving future 6G wireless networks. 

Under the bill, the members of the 6G Task Force would include representatives of the communications industry, public interest organizations or academic institutions, and representatives of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. The Future Networks Act requires that, within 180 days of the 6G Task Force being established, the group prepare a draft report on 6G wireless technology. The draft report would be published on the FCC's website and in the Federal Register for public comment Following the public comment period, and within 1 year of the 6G Task Force being established, the group would publish their final report and submit it to House and Senate Committees. 

The development of 6G technologies, standards, and spectrum policies no doubt will be a multi-faceted and complex undertaking. A future 6G report by the type of task force proposed in the Future Networks Act could serve as a valuable storehouse of knowledge for Congress, the FCC, and the Executive Branch and help pave the way for a successful eventual launch of 6G wireless networks. Now that the Future Networks Act has passed the House, the Senate should give the bill due consideration. 

 

In an April 2023 blog post, Free State Foundation President Randolph May identified the restoration of the FCC's authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum license auctions as essential for future 6G network deployment. However, in the near term, there are many opportunities for expanding 5G networks by repurposing spectrum from government use to private use. Seizing those opportunities depends not only on a replenished spectrum pipeline but revival of the Commission's auction authority. The 119th Congress should restore the FCC’s authority on spectrum license auctions and encourage timely replenishment of the spectrum pipeline. 

TMT with Mike O'Rielly – Ep 20: Technologist Views on Broadband Policy

Episode 20 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast featuring former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on April 15. In this episode, titled "A Technologist's View of Broadband and Public Policies," Mr. O'Rielly has a conversation with Dr. Sanjay Udani, former Verizon Chief Technologist & Vice President of Public Policy. Their conversation ranges a number of broadband technology and policy topics, including fiber deployment and Fios, capabilities of alternate technologies such as fixed wireless access (FWA) and low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite, public overemphasis on broadband speeds, the state and future of 4G and 5G wireless networks, and more. Streaming video of the episode is now available:

The FCC Should Rescind the Telnyx Forfeiture Now

I was pleased to see the report in today's Communications Daily [subscription required] that Telnyx, which is contesting a $4.5 million forfeiture proposed by the FCC, has been reinstated in good standing by the Industry Traceback Group (ITG). ITG, established by USTelecom, works collaboratively with voice service providers to combat illegal calls by tracing them back to their origin.

 

A Free State Foundation Perspectives, published March 12, 2025, explained in detail why the FCC's proposed forfeiture, based on a claim that Telnyx failed to satisfy the agency's "Effective Measures" rule for blocking illegal calls, raises serious rule of law concerns implicating fundamental due process and fair notice constraints. As the FSF Perspectives states: "This is because it appears Telnyx, and other providers for that matter, could not have known in advance the requirements of the rule Telnyx is charged with violating."

 

In this instance, if not rescinded, the proposed forfeiture, in effect, would transform the "Effective Measures" rule by imposing more stringent yet unspecified requirements and a higher liability standard than that which the Commission previously established through notice-and-comment rulemakings. As such, the FCC's proposed forfeiture smacks of "regulation by enforcement." This is because regulated entities are deprived of the ability to know and follow the law, contrary to the requirement of fair notice and the prohibition of unfair surprise that are recognized in Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause jurisprudence.

 

 

As the FSF Perspectives observed:

 

These due process concerns are at the core of President Trump's newly reinstated Executive Order 13892 – "Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication." The very first sentence reads: "Regulated parties must know in advance the rules by which the Federal Government will judge their actions." The EO goes on to declare that regulated entities should not be subjected to a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of "the legal standards applicable to that conduct." Indeed, the EO directs that agencies "shall afford regulated parties the safeguards described in this order, above and beyond those that the courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to impose."

Indeed, considering its vagueness and open-endedness, the FCC itself should "DELETE" the "Effective Measures" rule that Telnyx is claimed to have violated. In accordance with President Trump's April 9 Presidential Memorandum, "Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations," this likely unlawful rule, which inherently invites abuse on the basis of lack of due process and fair notice, should be repealed on the agency's own initiative.

 

In the meantime, and more immediately, the FCC should act now to rescind the proposed Telenyx forfeiture. Hopefully, ITG's reinstatement is a positive indication in that regard.

House Committee Advances New Bill to Reauthorize and Strengthen NTIA

On April 11, the House Commerce Committee voted to approve the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act of 2025 – HR 2482, a bill introduced on March 31 by Representatives Bob Matsui and Doris Matsui. The bill would reauthorize the NTIA for the first time in over 30 years. Additionally, HR 2482 would elevate the position of NTIA Administrator from a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department to a Deputy Under Secretary.  

Elevating the position of NTIA Administrator likely would give the officer more clout in undertaking important agency functions, such as coordinating spectrum use and planning among executive branch agencies. Federal government agencies occupy a significant amount of spectrum. Stronger leadership at NTIA could help further a more effective interagency spectrum coordination process for repurposing some of that spectrum for private commercial use. 

 

As recounted in a blog post from July 31, 2023, the House Commerce Committee passed an earlier version of the NTIA Reauthorization Act during the 118th Congress. The prompt passage of HR 2482 in the 119th Congress indicates that this bi-partisan legislation could become law this year. 

 

Credit is due to Reps. Latta and Matsui for their persistence on the NTIA Reauthorization Act. HR 2482 deserves a timely vote by the House of Representatives.   

House Committee Advances Bill for Vetting Recipients of High-Cost Broadband Subsidies

On April 8, the House Commerce Committee voted 50-1 to pass the Rural Broadband Act of 2025 – HR 2399. The bill would require the FCC to establish a vetting process for future applicants for future high-cost universal service program funding for deployment and supporting broadband Internet access services. The purpose of the vetting process is to ensure that subsidies go to entities that are capable of fulfilling their universal service obligations. 

The Rural Broadband Act has been introduced in prior Congresses. My blog post from February 16, 2023, describes a bit more about the bill as it was introduced in the 118th Congress by Senators Shelley Moore Capito and Amy Klobuchar. 

 

This bi-partisan legislation appears to be a reasonable measure to help prevent money collected from U.S. consumers via surcharges – effectively, "USF Taxes" – being misspent and wasted. The House of Representatives should give HR 2399 an up-or-down vote.

 

Meanwhile, the need for an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund is still pressing. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in our August 2023 comments to the Universal Service Reform Working Group: "Reform of the USF subsidy system is urgently needed because the system is outdated and no longer fiscally sustainable." The existing universal service regime was established in a voice-centric 1990s context, with a broader contribution base and much smaller sized fund than today with a dwindled base and a bloated annual distribution amount of $7 billion to $8 billion. As a result, the USF Tax has continued to climb, and the most recent proposed quarterly contribution factor increase will raise the USF Tax to 36.6%.

 

Notably, the constitutionality of the contribution mechanism of the USF was the subject of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on March 26 of this year. Regardless of the Court's verdict on the constitutionality of the USF's contribution system, economic realities require reforms. One possible reform is switching from the USF Tax to appropriations by Congress. Another reform option is expanding the contribution base to major Internet websites that benefit the most from universal broadband connectivity. Those ideas were among the many topics discussed at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – held on March 25, 2025, in Washington D.C. Video of the conference panels, keynote addresses, and keynote conversations are available online.

TMT with Mike O'Rielly – Ep 19: Keynote Convo at FSF's 17th Annual Conference

Episode 19 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast featuring former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on April 2. In this episode, titled "The Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference," Mr. O'Rielly has a conversation at #FSFConf17 with guests FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, and former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Their conversation ranges a number of communications, competition, and administrative agency-related topics. Streaming video of the episode is now available: 

FCC Should Keep Verizon/Frontier Merger Clean From Extraneous Conditions

Today, April 2, Communications Daily reported on dueling ex parte filings in the Verizon/Frontier merger review proceeding. The Coalition for IP Transition has urged the FCC to condition any prospective agency approval of the merger on IP interconnection-related requirements. However, the Coalition doesn't identify any specific harms arising from the merger. Under prevailing agency precedents (even if sometimes breached to achieve pro-regulatory ends), merger conditions may only be imposed to remedy transaction-specific harms. 

In its ex parte filing, the Coalition for IP Transition raised what they call "the serious problems faced by competitorsbecause of the Applicants and other price cap Local Exchange Carriers ('LECs') refusals to interconnect on an IP-basis, despite offering IP services to other customers" (emphasis added). Notably, the Coalition addresses the practices of price cap LECs' generally, and not just those of Verizon and Frontier. Also, in the alternative to imposing conditions on the agency's prospective approval of the proposed Verizon/Frontier merger, the Coalition "urged the Commission to consider ordering all price cap LECs" to meet certain disclosure, IP interconnection, and access charge-related requirements. Such an order would require agency action through a separate, industry-wide proceeding. 

 

Thus, on its face, the Coalition's ex parte filing is addressed to matters pertaining to the entire voice services market. Accordingly, the Coalition does not raise potential harms that would arise from the Verizon/Frontier merger. Communications Daily reported that Verizon and Frontier responded by making those same points about non-transaction-specific matters. But one need not take the merging parties' word for it. The Coalition's filing makes it plain. 

 

Regardless of one's policy view about tech transitions from TDM to all-IP networks, network interconnection, and access charges in the voice services market, those matters should be addressed, if at all, through separate inquiry or rulemaking proceedings applicable to the entire market – and not through transactions involving only two merging parties. The Commission should not impose the non-transaction-specific conditions requested by the Coalition. 

 

Moreover, the Commission should be mindful that there is a dwindling amount of time left on the agency's informal "shot clock" for completing its review of the proposed Verizon/Frontier. During review periods, merging parties are vulnerable to lost economic opportunity and regulatory uncertainty costs that can undermine their competitiveness. The agency should complete its review and decide before the deadline expires, if not sooner. 

 

For a brief background on the Verizon/Frontier merger, see my blog post from February 5 of this year, "Verizon/Frontier Merger Would Make Fiber and Fixed Wireless More Competitive."