HB 5480 would create a new Chapter 18 in the Texas Business & Commerce Code to regulate large digital advertising businesses on the basis of competition and transparency. The bill defines digital advertising exchanges, buy-side brokerages, and sell-side brokerages, and then imposes structural limits on firms with more than $20 billion in digital advertising revenue. In particular, such firms could not simultaneously own a digital advertising exchange and certain brokerage or advertising-seller functions, or own both buy-side and sell-side brokerage operations in the prohibited combinations described in the bill.
For large brokerages with more than $5 billion in digital advertising revenue, the bill would impose fiduciary-like duties to act in the customer’s best interest and seek the most favorable terms reasonably available. It also requires extensive disclosure and recordkeeping, including customer-requested transparency reports, routing-practice reports, retention of certain records, clock synchronization, annual certification to the attorney general, and policies to separate and independently operate covered business lines. The bill further declares that certain order and bid records remain the property of the brokerage customer and restricts how disclosed information may be used.
The bill would also give the attorney general significant enforcement authority. The attorney general could seek injunctive relief and actual damages on behalf of injured Texans, administer an antitrust consumer damages fund, and oversee required divestitures when a covered company must separate prohibited lines of business. The bill creates a private right of action for harmed brokerage customers, including statutory damages of $1 million per month or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney’s fees, and limits class action waivers for claims under the chapter.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new state regulatory framework aimed at large digital ad platforms and intermediaries, affecting major ad-tech companies, brokers, exchanges, advertisers, and customers using digital advertising services. It would also authorize the attorney general to adjust revenue thresholds for inflation beginning in 2027 and require guidance on divestiture and certification procedures. The act would take effect September 1, 2025.
The available legislative history shows the bill was referred to the House Trade, Workforce & Economic Development Committee, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts in the provided materials. As a result, there is little direct evidence of debate in the record supplied, but the bill’s structure suggests a strong policy preference for market separation, transparency, and consumer protection in digital advertising.
HB 5480 would amend the Business & Commerce Code by adding a new chapter governing digital advertising competition, transparency, and enforcement. It would create new statutory duties for large digital advertising exchanges and brokerages, establish disclosure and record-retention requirements, authorize attorney general oversight and divestiture review, and create both public and private enforcement mechanisms. The bill would also establish an antitrust consumer damages fund in the state treasury and allow the attorney general to recover and distribute damages to injured persons.
Based on the bill text, the overall sentiment appears pro-regulation and pro-transparency, with the bill framed as a competition and consumer-protection measure rather than a deregulatory one. Because no committee transcript excerpts or votes are provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the record supplied. The absence of recorded votes and discussion means the public sentiment cannot be measured directly from the materials, but the bill’s design indicates an intent to address perceived market power and opacity in digital advertising.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s structural separation requirements, especially the prohibition on large firms owning both exchanges and brokerage or advertising-seller functions, and the mandatory divestiture process. Another likely issue is the breadth of the disclosure obligations, which require detailed bid, routing, compensation, and data information that some industry participants may view as burdensome or commercially sensitive. The private right of action, statutory damages, and limits on class action waivers could also be controversial, as could the attorney general’s authority to adjust revenue thresholds and oversee compliance. No specific opposing or supporting speakers are identified in the provided record.