Don’t Spy On Me Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to restrict federal government surveillance by banning vehicle fingerprinting databases and empowering individuals to seek legal redress for violations of this prohibition.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal government agencies from establishing or maintaining databases that link individuals or vehicle license plates to identifiable information collected by automated license plate readers, such as vehicle characteristics or geolocation data. It also creates a civil cause of action, allowing individuals or entities whose information is unlawfully collected or maintained to sue the responsible government agency for damages and injunctive relief.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is a critical measure to protect individual privacy and prevent potential government overreach in tracking citizens' movements and activities. They contend that linking license plate data with other identifiable vehicle characteristics and geolocation information creates a comprehensive surveillance tool that could be abused, infringing on Fourth Amendment rights and eroding civil liberties.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such databases are valuable tools for law enforcement and national security agencies in tracking criminals, terrorists, or missing persons. They may contend that prohibiting these databases could hinder investigations, compromise public safety, and remove a legitimate tool for identifying vehicles involved in crimes, potentially making it harder to solve cases and ensure national security.
The bill is very short and easily digestible, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 2(a) and 2(c)
Prohibition on Vehicle Fingerprinting Databases
This section explicitly forbids any federal government agency from creating or keeping a 'vehicle fingerprinting database.' Such a database is defined as one that connects a person's name or a vehicle's license plate to other details gathered by automated license plate readers, including specific vehicle features like bumper stickers, damage, make, model, color, or even a vehicle's travel history and frequency of visits to certain locations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this prohibition is essential for safeguarding civil liberties against pervasive government surveillance. They believe that the aggregation of vehicle characteristics and movement data creates a detailed profile of individuals without their consent or probable cause, which is an unacceptable invasion of privacy.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this prohibition unduly restricts law enforcement and intelligence agencies' ability to use modern technology to track vehicles associated with criminal activity, national security threats, or Amber Alerts. They may contend that existing legal frameworks and oversight are sufficient to prevent abuse.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances individual privacy rights against the government's interest in using advanced technology for law enforcement and national security purposes. It creates a tension between the desire for comprehensive surveillance capabilities to enhance public safety and the protection of citizens from potential government overreach and tracking.
Section 2(b)
Private Right of Action for Violations
This provision allows any individual or entity whose information is illegally included in a prohibited vehicle fingerprinting database to sue the responsible government agency in federal court. They can seek actual damages for any harm caused, a statutory payment of $25,000 if the agency intentionally targeted them, court orders to stop the violation (injunctive relief), and reimbursement for their legal fees and costs.
The bill defines 'Government agency' by referencing section 4 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1433).
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions across different federal statutes.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions streamlines legislation and ensures consistent application of terms across different laws, preventing conflicting interpretations and unnecessary repetition.
Case against: It requires external research for a full understanding, potentially obscuring the precise scope of the bill's applicability for a casual reader who does not have immediate access to the referenced legal code.
Estimated impact: The definition determines the full scope of federal entities subject to the prohibition, which includes departments, agencies, and independent establishments of the U.S. Government, thereby defining the breadth of the bill's impact.