Digital Integrity in Democracy Act
SB 840, titled the Digital Integrity in Democracy Act, would create a new exception to Section 230 immunity for large social media platforms that intentionally or knowingly host “false election administration information.” The bill defines that term as objectively incorrect information about the time, place, or manner of a covered election, or about voter qualifications, restrictions, penalties, or registration/eligibility status, while expressly excluding political speech about candidates, officeholders, or political parties. It applies only to social media platforms with at least 25 million unique monthly U.S. users in most months of the prior year.
The bill also establishes a notice-and-removal process. Once a platform receives a complete written complaint identifying the false information and providing contact information, it must determine whether the content is objectively incorrect and, if so, remove it within 48 hours, or within 24 hours if the notice is received on election day. The platform must then respond in writing to the complainant within 12 hours after removal. If the platform learns of the content by other means, it must remove it within the same 48-hour or 24-hour deadlines to preserve a safe harbor from liability.
Enforcement authority would be expanded to allow the U.S. Attorney General, state attorneys general or secretaries of state, and in some cases candidates, to bring civil actions in federal court. Available remedies include $50,000 in damages for each item of false election administration information not removed and injunctive relief. The bill would amend federal communications law, specifically Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, and would apply only to false election administration information alleged to be hosted on or after enactment.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s introduction is strongly pro-election integrity and aimed at rapid correction of misinformation that could affect voting access or election administration. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broader support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to target large platforms while limiting the scope to objectively false administrative information rather than political advocacy.
Likely points of contention include the bill’s impact on Section 230 protections, the risk of over-removal or censorship of disputed election-related content, and the practical burden on platforms to evaluate and remove content on short deadlines. Another possible issue is who can trigger enforcement and whether the private right of action for candidates could encourage litigation. Supporters would likely emphasize election security, voter access, and accountability for platforms, while critics would likely focus on free speech concerns and the difficulty of distinguishing false administrative information from protected political speech.
The bill would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act to carve out liability protection for large social media platforms that intentionally or knowingly host objectively false election administration information. It would create new federal definitions, impose notice-and-removal obligations, and authorize civil enforcement by the Department of Justice, state officials, and certain candidates. In practice, it would expose covered platforms to damages and injunctions for failing to remove qualifying content within the specified timeframes, while preserving immunity for content removed promptly after notice or discovery.
The bill appears to be motivated by concern over election misinformation and a desire to protect voters from false information about how elections are run. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the legislative history available here. Based on the text alone, the bill’s sponsors seem to favor aggressive platform accountability, while the design of the measure suggests anticipated debate over speech, platform moderation, and the scope of federal intervention in online content.
The main points of contention are likely to be the Section 230 exception, the definition of “false election administration information,” and the enforcement scheme. Critics may argue that the bill could pressure platforms to remove lawful speech too quickly, especially during election periods, and that the distinction between false administrative information and political speech may be difficult to apply in practice. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill is narrowly tailored to objectively false information about voting logistics and eligibility, and that the short removal deadlines are necessary to prevent election harm.