LISTOS Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 17, 2025
Bottom line
The LISTOS Act aims to address disparities in online safety and content moderation for non-English speaking users by imposing transparency and consistency requirements on large online platforms, with enforcement by the FTC and State Attorneys General.
What it actually does
This bill, the LISTOS Act of 2025, requires large online platforms to ensure their content moderation processes are "reasonably consistent" across all languages in which they engage in monetization practices. It mandates annual public reports to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on content moderation staffing, automated processes, and outcomes by language, and requires consistent access to user tools and platform policies across all offered languages. The bill also establishes an advisory group to guide best practices for language-sensitive technologies and grants enforcement authority to the FTC and State Attorneys General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect the safety and ensure equitable access for non-English users online. They contend that current under-investment in non-English content moderation leads to increased proliferation of harmful content, fraud, and harassment targeting these communities, hindering economic opportunity, public health, and civil rights. This legislation ensures platforms are accountable for their impact across all language communities.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill imposes significant compliance burdens and costs on online platforms, particularly for those operating in many languages with limited user bases. They might also raise concerns about the feasibility of achieving "reasonably consistent" enforcement across all monetized languages, given the nuances of language and cultural context, and the potential for over-moderation or censorship.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are accessible, but understanding the full implications of "reasonably consistent" enforcement and the detailed reporting requirements would benefit from careful reading.
Section 3
Duty to Ensure Consistent Enforcement
This section mandates that operators of "covered platforms" (large online platforms) must ensure that their processes for detecting, suppressing, and removing illegal content or content violating platform policies are "reasonably consistent" across all languages in which the platform engages in monetization practices. It includes exceptions for end-to-end encrypted messaging services and languages used by fewer than 100,000 users in the U.S.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the systemic under-investment in non-English content moderation, which has led to disproportionate harm to non-English speaking communities. They believe it will create a more equitable and safer online environment for all users.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that defining and achieving "reasonably consistent" enforcement across diverse languages and cultural contexts is inherently difficult and could lead to subjective interpretations and enforcement challenges. They may also contend that it places an undue burden on platforms, potentially leading to reduced service offerings in certain languages or over-moderation.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for equitable content moderation and the practical challenges and costs associated with achieving true consistency across a multitude of languages and cultural nuances, especially given varying staffing and technological capabilities.
Section 4
Disclosures on Staffing and Automated Processes
This section requires covered platforms to submit annual, machine-readable, public reports to the FTC detailing their manual and algorithmic content moderation practices. Reports must include data on content moderation staffing (by location, region, and language proficiency), performance metrics for automated systems across languages, a list of monetized languages with revenue breakdown, percentage of content reviewed in its original language, and content moderation outcome measures like takedowns and response times per language.
Section 5
Consistent Access to Tools and Documentation
This section mandates that covered platforms must ensure all user tools for reporting content for review or automated action are accessible in all languages in which the platform offers its service. Additionally, all platform policies and acceptable use information must be posted in the same manner for all languages offered.
Section 6
Advisory Group on Language-Sensitive Technologies
This section directs the FTC to establish an "Advisory Group on Language-Sensitive Technologies" within 360 days of enactment. This group will provide advice and guidance to the Commission on best practices for private and public entities using "covered technology" (e.g., speech recognition, NLP, image/video processing, automated content moderation) to ensure non-discriminatory application across languages. Membership will include diverse viewpoints, federal and non-federal stakeholders, and representatives from impacted communities and current/former content moderators. The group's findings and recommendations will be made public.
Section 7
Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission and States
This section grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys General. Violations of Sections 3, 4, or 5 are treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act, allowing the FTC to enforce the Act with its full powers. State Attorneys General can bring civil actions as parens patriae to enjoin violations, compel compliance, and obtain damages for residents, with provisions for notifying and allowing intervention by the FTC.
Defines "covered platform" as a website, internet application, or mobile internet application that allows users to create, share, view, or search for user-generated or third-party content (including social media, search engines, and messaging services) AND has had at least 10,000,000 monthly active users for 3 or more of the past 12 months within the United States.
Section 10(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms at the end, but the threshold for applicability is crucial for understanding the bill's scope.
Case for: Supporters would argue this threshold ensures the bill targets only large, influential platforms with significant resources and impact, avoiding undue burden on smaller entities.
Case against: Critics might argue that even platforms with fewer than 10 million users can have significant impact within specific language communities, and excluding them leaves a gap in protection. Others might argue 10 million is too low for "large" platforms.
Estimated impact: Limits the bill's applicability to a subset of the largest online platforms, potentially dozens of companies.
Defines "monetization practices" broadly to include any avenues through which a platform garners revenue, such as displaying or amplifying specific content for compensation or allowing businesses to use the platform to find, charge, or communicate with customers. This definition is critical because the "duty to ensure consistent enforcement" (Sec. 3) and reporting requirements (Sec. 4) apply to languages "in which the covered platform engages in monetization practices."
Section 10(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice, but its breadth is significant.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition prevents platforms from circumventing the intent of the bill by narrowly defining "monetization" or by shifting revenue generation to avoid compliance in certain languages. It ensures that where platforms profit, they also bear responsibility.
Case against: Platforms might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently capture activities not directly related to content moderation or create ambiguity regarding which languages truly fall under the "monetization" umbrella, increasing compliance complexity.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of languages subject to the bill's core requirements beyond just advertising-supported content to potentially include e-commerce, subscription services, or other business-to-customer interactions.