HB2019, the “Terms-of-service Labeling, Design, and Readability Act” or “TLDR Act,” would direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules requiring certain commercial websites and online services to provide a short-form terms-of-service summary, a graphic data-flow diagram, and an interactive, machine-readable version of their full terms of service. The summary would have to be truthful, non-misleading, accessible to users with low literacy and disabilities, and placed prominently at the top of the terms-of-service page, with the graphic diagram immediately below it.
The required summary would need to explain what sensitive information the service processes, what data is necessary for basic service functions versus optional features, what rights users give up or obligations they accept, historical changes to the terms, deletion instructions if available, recent reported data breaches, and an estimate of how long it takes to read the full terms. The bill also directs the FTC to publish guidance on how to depict data sharing with affiliates and third parties, and to require tagging of terms-of-service provisions in an interactive data format such as XML.
The bill would create a new federal disclosure regime for online terms of service and would make violations enforceable as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It would apply to commercial websites and online services, but excludes small businesses as defined under the Small Business Act. The FTC would gain rulemaking, enforcement, and guidance responsibilities, and state attorneys general could bring parens patriae actions on behalf of residents, subject to notice and coordination provisions. The bill also defines sensitive information broadly, including health, biometric, geolocation, financial, communications, browsing history, and demographic data, which would likely affect how covered entities draft and present privacy and user-agreement disclosures.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at consumer transparency and readability, suggesting a pro-consumer framing rather than a punitive regulatory approach. Its title and structure indicate an effort to simplify dense online legal terms for ordinary users.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the FTC’s rulemaking authority, the compliance burden on covered online services, and the breadth of the required disclosures. Technology and platform companies may object to the cost and complexity of generating standardized summaries, data-flow diagrams, and machine-readable tags, while consumer advocates are likely to support the transparency requirements. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad definition of sensitive information and the requirement to disclose historical breaches and data-sharing practices, which could raise implementation and competitive concerns for covered entities.