WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 9016

Email Privacy Act

119th Congress Introduced by Bonnie Watson Coleman and 8 co-sponsors

Modernizes privacy protections for data stored by third-party services (email, cloud) while clarifying and narrowing lawful access for authorities.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9016

Overview

  • Bill: HR 9016, Email Privacy Act
  • Session: 119th Congress, 2nd Session
  • Introduced: May 22, 2026 by Rep. Suzan DelBene (with Rep. Warren Davidson as a co-sponsor)
  • Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary
  • Purpose: To amend title 18 of the United States Code to update privacy protections for electronic communications information stored by third-party service providers, balancing consumer privacy with law enforcement needs.

Main purpose and intent

  • Modernize privacy protections for electronic communications stored by third-party providers (e.g., email, cloud storage) to better protect consumer privacy while preserving or clarifying law enforcement access where appropriate.
  • Replace certain language and requirements to reflect contemporary communications practices and technologies (wire and electronic communications stored or maintained by providers).

Key provisions and changes

  1. Amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2702 (Voluntary disclosure corrections)

    • Change terminology from “divulge” to “disclose.”
    • Remove some references tied strictly to “electronic storage by that service” and replace with broader language such as “stored, held, or maintained by that service.”
    • Update definitions from “to the public” and similar phrasing to reflect disclosure to specific persons or entities (originator, addressee, intended recipient, subscriber, customer, or their agent).
    • Expand and clarify who may receive disclosures, including the recipient’s agent and those acting on behalf of the originator, addressee, or intended recipient.

  2. Amendments to required disclosure section (18 U.S.C. 2703)

    • Modify who can access stored communications and under what conditions.
    • Update the language to refer to “provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service.”
    • Adjust warrant and disclosure procedures to require a court-issued warrant and to potentially indicate the date by which the provider must disclose.
    • Replace certain references to “governmental entity” with broader or clarified language, including expectations around consent and the role of the warrant or other legal process.
    • Introduce or adjust consent-based disclosures: disclosures may occur with the lawful consent of the subscriber or customer.
    • Add and adjust references to administrative subpoenas, grand juries, and civil discovery subpoenas as valid mechanisms for obtaining data.
    • Create alignment with 2702 changes to ensure consistency in how disclosures are handled.

  3. Warrant requirement for stored communications content (18 U.S.C. 2703)

    • Repeal certain provisions tied to a limited storage duration (e.g., “one hundred and eighty days or less”) and revise related subsections for clarity.
    • Modify the structure of subsection (b) and related cross-references to streamline warrant requirements for stored content.

  4. Additional structural and definitional updates

    • Ensure terminology consistently reflects modern service offerings (electronic communication service or remote computing service).
    • Clarify that disclosures can occur with proper legal authorization and/or consent of the subscriber or customer.

Who and what would be affected

  • Providers of electronic communication services (e.g., email, cloud-based storage, and other remote computing services) would be subject to updated disclosure rules.
  • Governmental entities seeking access to stored communications would need to comply with revised warrants, subpoenas, and consent provisions.
  • Originators, addressees, intended recipients, subscribers, and customers would have clearer rights and protections regarding disclosures of communications stored by third-party providers.
  • Law enforcement and prosecutors would need to adhere to updated notification and response timelines and procedures.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Bill currently moves to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
  • Effective dates and implementation timelines are not specified in the text provided; typical next steps would include debate, possible amendments, and votes in both chambers, followed by potential presidential action.
  • The bill references potential notice provisions and the possibility of indicating disclosure deadlines within warrants, suggesting procedural timelines could be introduced or clarified by future amendments.

Practical impact

  • Potentially stronger privacy protections for individuals' stored electronic communications by requiring more explicit disclosures and consent pathways.
  • Clarified and potentially streamlined processes for lawful access by authorities, with emphasis on warrants and consent.
  • Better alignment of privacy rules with current technology practices and service models, reducing ambiguity for providers and users.
  • Could affect how quickly providers must respond to lawful requests and the manner in which recipients are notified about such requests.

Note: As HR 9016 is a proposed bill, provisions may be subject to further revision during the legislative process.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.