An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 59.1 a chapter numbered 60, consisting of sections numbered 59.1-614, 59.1-615, and 59.1-616, relating to streaming advertisement volume control; civil penalty.
HB518 adds a new chapter to Title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia establishing rules for the volume of advertisements and other short-form video content on streaming platforms and certain social media video services. The bill requires covered services and third-party advertising managers that serve Virginia consumers to use “reasonable care” to normalize the audio of commercials, promotional videos, and public-service spots so they are not louder than the long-form content they accompany. It defines key terms such as “video streaming service,” “social media video service,” “long-form content,” and “short-form content,” and it ties the new standard to industry audio-loudness practices and the federal CALM Act framework used for television.
The bill creates a new consumer-protection requirement in Virginia law for streaming and social media video platforms, while also authorizing a civil penalty for violations under the new chapter. It does not regulate all online video services; rather, it targets services whose primary purpose is delivering video programming and certain social media platforms with user video feeds, and it excludes broadcast stations, cable operators, ISPs, and services without commercial advertisements. The measure also provides a compliance safe harbor for services that normalize ad audio, and it limits liability where a platform uses a third-party advertising manager under a written agreement requiring ad volume to stay within the target loudness of the accompanying content.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge directly. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a consumer-friendly, technical regulation aimed at reducing a common annoyance for viewers by preventing loud streaming ads. The structure of the bill, including the reasonable-care standard and compliance presumption, suggests an effort to balance consumer protection with operational flexibility for platforms and advertisers.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope of covered services, the feasibility and cost of audio normalization, and the liability framework for platforms that rely on third-party ad managers. Streaming services and social media platforms may view the requirement as an added compliance burden or argue that the definitions could sweep in a broad range of online video products. Advertisers and ad-tech intermediaries may also be concerned about contractual responsibility and enforcement, while consumer advocates would likely support the bill as a straightforward fix for excessively loud advertisements.