Pro Codes Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 19, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to balance the public's right to access laws, including incorporated standards, with the copyright protections that fund the development of these essential technical and voluntary consensus standards by private organizations.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code (Copyright Law) to clarify that copyrighted standards retain their protection even when incorporated by reference into federal, state, or local law. To maintain this protection, standards development organizations (SDOs) must make the incorporated portions of the standard publicly accessible online at no monetary cost, including a searchable table of contents and index, within a reasonable time after obtaining notice of incorporation. The bill defines "publicly accessible online" to allow for account creation or agreement to terms of service, provided there is no monetary cost and no unauthorized use of personally identifiable information.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill supports the vital work of SDOs in creating technical and voluntary consensus standards that are critical for public safety, innovation, and commerce, all without direct taxpayer expense. They emphasize that copyright revenue is essential for funding the rigorous, open, and balanced development process of these standards. Simultaneously, the bill ensures that the public can access the current, accurate versions of these standards online, striking a necessary and practical balance between intellectual property rights and public access to law.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might contend that any standard incorporated into law should be fully and freely accessible to the public without any restrictions, as it becomes part of the legal framework citizens are expected to follow. They may argue that requirements such as creating an account or agreeing to terms of service, even without monetary cost, still impose barriers to truly open public understanding, analysis, and use of the law, potentially hindering innovation or legal challenges.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short titles for the Act as the "Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act of 2026" or the "Pro Codes Act of 2026." These titles are used for easy reference and identification of the legislation.
Supporters argue
Establishing a clear short title is standard legislative practice that aids in public discourse and legal referencing, making the bill more accessible and understandable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is a procedural element of legislative drafting.
Tradeoffs
None directly related to this provision.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Standards and Copyright
This section outlines Congress's understanding and rationale for the bill. It highlights the significant benefits derived from private standards development organizations (SDOs), their rigorous consensus-based processes, and the widespread use of their standards in laws and regulations. It emphasizes that SDOs rely on copyright protection to fund their work and acknowledges the public interest in both the creation of these standards and access to them once they become law. The findings explicitly state the bill's intent to balance these competing goals.
Section 3, adding new 17 U.S.C. 123(b)
Copyright Protection for Incorporated Standards with Public Access Requirements
This core provision amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code to state that a copyrighted standard retains its copyright protection even if it is incorporated by reference into a federal, state, or local law or regulation. This protection is conditional: the relevant standards development organization (SDO) must make all incorporated portions of the standard "publicly accessible online at no monetary cost" within a reasonable period after learning of its incorporation. This online access must include a searchable table of contents and index, or equivalent aids, to help users locate specific content.
Section 3, adding new 17 U.S.C. 123(c)
Burden of Proof for Copyright Compliance
This subsection specifies that in any legal proceeding where a party claims that a standards development organization (SDO) has failed to comply with the public access requirements necessary to retain copyright protection for an incorporated standard, the burden of proof rests on the party making that assertion. This means the challenger must demonstrate that the SDO did not meet the conditions for online accessibility.
This sub-provision clarifies the definition of "publicly accessible online." It states that requiring a user to create an account or agree to terms of service does not prevent material from being considered publicly accessible online, provided there is no monetary cost to the user and no personally identifiable information collected is used without affirmative and express consent.
Section 3, new 17 U.S.C. 123(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification necessary for the practical implementation of the public access requirement, defining the boundaries of what constitutes 'free' access in a digital context. It is standard legislative practice to place such specifics in definitions.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision offers a practical compromise, allowing SDOs to manage access, collect anonymized usage data, and maintain a relationship with users (e.g., for updates or feedback) without imposing a financial barrier. This flexibility helps SDOs meet the 'no monetary cost' requirement while protecting their operational models.
Case against: Critics might argue that any requirement beyond direct, anonymous access creates a barrier, potentially deterring some users or making automated data extraction and analysis more difficult. They may view it as a loophole that allows SDOs to retain a degree of control over 'free' access that undermines the spirit of open access to law.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly impacts the user experience for accessing incorporated standards, determining the practical level of 'freeness' and ease of access for the public. It shapes how SDOs will implement the online access requirement.