Senators Introduce Bipartisan 'JAWBONE' Act to Let People Sue Over Government Pressure on Platforms

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have introduced a bipartisan bill that would create a new federal legal remedy for people who say government officials pressured private companies to suppress lawful speech. The measure, announced June 11 in a Senate Commerce Committee press release, would also require federal agencies to log and publicly disclose many contacts with broadcasters, online platforms and artificial intelligence companies about user expression.

The proposal, called the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression Act, or JAWBONE Act, is aimed at a problem that courts have struggled to address cleanly: when government officials allegedly lean on private intermediaries to take down or demote protected speech. The issue gained national attention in Murthy v. Missouri, a 2024 Supreme Court case in which the justices held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to obtain the injunction they sought against federal officials. That ruling underscored how hard it can be not just to win these cases, but to get into court and obtain evidence in the first place.

The bill tries to answer both problems. It would create a federal cause of action against a federal agency or federal employee that “coerce[s] or attempt[s] to coerce” broadcasters, interactive computer services or providers of AI systems into taking action against lawful, First Amendment-protected expression. And it defines those “content actions” broadly. The measure is not limited to direct takedown demands; it also reaches changes in how content is displayed, recommendation systems, account suspensions and moderation policies.

A person harmed by a violation could sue in federal district court for compensatory damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and equitable relief such as a court order. The bill would bar punitive damages. It also includes a notable procedural feature designed to help plaintiffs build a case before it is thrown out early: a limited discovery period of up to 30 days, with a one-time 30-day extension for good cause, before early dismissal disputes are resolved. The bill text also would allow state attorneys general to sue on behalf of residents.

The second major piece of the legislation is a transparency system for government contacts with intermediaries about speech. Agencies would have to log covered communications and send them to a centralized portal. They would have to report at least once every 120 days, and the portal would publish public, searchable summaries of those contacts.

The bill would allow redactions using Freedom of Information Act-style exemptions, while making unredacted records available to relevant congressional committee leaders. In practical terms, that would give the public a partial window into government requests involving speech while preserving some room for confidential material.

The proposal also includes guardrails. It would not apply to communications tied to a lawful investigation or enforcement of federal or state law, so long as those actions do not violate the First Amendment. It also exempts actions authorized by a warrant and directions related to official use of a system. In any lawsuit, the government would bear the burden of proving an exception applies.

Just as important, the bill is aimed at alleged government coercion of private moderation decisions, not at forcing companies to host speech they do not want to carry. That distinction matters because recent NetChoice litigation reinforced that online platforms themselves have First Amendment editorial rights.

The Senate Commerce Committee press release said the bill has support from a cross-ideological group of organizations, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge and Americans for Tax Reform. As of the source material available here, the Senate’s posted bill PDF did not show a formal Congress.gov bill number.

Wyden said the bill is meant to give ordinary people a practical way to respond when officials cross the line. “Regular Americans can’t count on those companies to stand up to government jawboning, they need a way to level the playing field,” he said.