COOL Online Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-28]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 15, 2026
Bottom line
The COOL Online Act aims to increase transparency for consumers buying foreign-made products online by requiring clear disclosure of origin and seller location, with enforcement by the FTC.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "COOL Online Act," mandates that online retailers and marketplace sellers conspicuously display the country of origin for new foreign-made products and the country where the seller's principal place of business is located. It includes specific exclusions for certain agricultural products, FDA-regulated food and drugs, used items, and small sellers. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is tasked with enforcement, and an interagency agreement with Customs and Border Protection and USDA is required for consistent implementation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill empowers consumers by providing essential information about where products are made and who is selling them, enabling more informed purchasing decisions. They contend it promotes fair competition by ensuring domestic producers are not disadvantaged by a lack of transparency for foreign goods and could help consumers avoid counterfeit products or those from countries with questionable labor practices.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these disclosure requirements could impose significant compliance burdens on online sellers, particularly smaller businesses, potentially leading to increased costs passed on to consumers or reduced product availability. They might also raise concerns about the practical challenges of verifying origin information for multi-sourced products or the potential for trade disputes if certain countries are perceived to be unfairly targeted.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing a reader to understand its core provisions well within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Mandatory Online Country of Origin and Seller Location Disclosure
This provision requires that any new product of foreign origin sold, advertised, or offered for sale on an internet website must clearly show its country of origin (or multiple countries if multi-sourced) and the country where the seller's main business is located. This information must be displayed conspicuously in the product's online description.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision empowers consumers to make ethical, economic, or quality-based choices by knowing where products come from and who is selling them. It addresses a perceived lack of transparency in online marketplaces.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for online businesses, potentially stifling e-commerce growth and increasing operational costs, which could ultimately be passed on to consumers. They may also question the actual utility of this information for the average consumer.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer desire for transparency against the compliance burden on businesses and the potential impact on international trade.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)
Exclusions from Disclosure Requirements
This section carves out several categories of products from the mandatory disclosure rules. These include most agricultural products (like meat, poultry, eggs, and covered commodities), food and drugs regulated by the FDA, used or previously-owned articles, and goods sold by "small sellers" (defined as those with less than $20,000 in annual sales and fewer than 200 discrete sales).
Section 2(b)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement and Interagency Agreement
This section designates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the primary enforcement agency for the new disclosure requirements, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts. It also mandates that within six months of enactment, the FTC, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) must establish and publish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure consistent implementation of the Act.
These sections establish a "safe harbor" and limitation of liability for retailers and marketplace sellers. They are not in violation if they relied in good faith on false or deceptive origin information provided by a third-party (manufacturer, importer, etc.) and took immediate corrective action upon notice.
Section 2(a)(4) and Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to mitigate unintended consequences and ensure fairness for entities that are not the original source of potentially false information. It prevents retailers from being held solely responsible for upstream misrepresentations.
Case for: Supporters argue this protects retailers who are dependent on information from their suppliers, preventing them from being unfairly penalized for misrepresentations they did not create. It encourages retailers to act quickly to correct errors without fear of retroactive punishment.
Case against: Critics might argue that this safe harbor could create a loophole, allowing retailers to avoid due diligence in verifying origin information, or that it shifts too much responsibility onto consumers or enforcement agencies to identify and report false information before retailers are compelled to act.
Estimated impact: Reduces liability risk for online retailers and marketplaces, potentially influencing their due diligence processes and response times to reported inaccuracies.