HR-8030-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Maxine Waters (D-CA)
What it does
The DPA Transparency Act of 2026 would require public disclosure of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) — legal arrangements in which the Department of Justice agrees to suspend criminal charges against a company or individual in exchange for meeting certain conditions, such as paying fines or implementing compliance programs. The bill's full text was not available for review; the analysis below is based on the bill's title, category, and committee referral to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Who benefits
The general public and investors who would gain visibility into corporate misconduct settlements. Journalists, researchers, and watchdog organizations that monitor corporate accountability. Shareholders who could make more informed decisions knowing the legal exposure of companies they invest in. Competing businesses that did not engage in the same misconduct and may have been disadvantaged. Victims of corporate wrongdoing who would have greater access to information about how cases were resolved.
Who is hurt
Companies subject to DPAs that may face reputational harm from mandatory disclosure of unproven allegations or settlement terms. Individuals named in DPA-related documents who have not been convicted of any crime. Businesses that argue disclosure could complicate ongoing investigations or deter future cooperation with prosecutors. The Department of Justice, which may lose negotiating leverage if companies fear public disclosure of DPA terms. Law firms and compliance consultants whose clients may become more reluctant to enter DPAs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that DPAs are negotiated largely in secret, allowing major corporations to resolve serious criminal allegations — including fraud, bribery, and financial crimes — without public accountability or judicial oversight. They contend that transparency is essential to deter future misconduct, noting that the DOJ entered over 400 DPAs between 2000 and 2023 with limited public scrutiny of their terms or effectiveness.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory disclosure could undermine the effectiveness of DPAs as a law enforcement tool by discouraging companies from cooperating with investigators or self-reporting violations, knowing that settlement terms will become public. They contend that premature or broad disclosure could compromise ongoing investigations, expose confidential business information, and prejudice individuals named in agreements who have not been found guilty of any crime.