S-673-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 569.
Sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would allow small and mid-sized news organizations — those with no more than 1,500 full-time employees, plus nonnetwork broadcasters — to band together and collectively negotiate with large online platforms (generally those with 50 million or more monthly U.S. users and significant revenue or global reach) over the terms, pricing, and conditions under which those platforms display or use news content. It would create a limited, temporary exemption from antitrust laws to permit this joint negotiation, require both sides to bargain in good faith, allow private lawsuits if the rules are violated, and provide for arbitration in some disputes. The bill's provisions would expire six years after enactment, and the Government Accountability Office would be required to study the effects on local news and journalist employment.
Who benefits
Small and mid-sized local and regional news outlets (print, digital, and broadcast) that currently lack individual bargaining power against large platforms; journalists employed by those outlets who may see improved financial stability at their organizations; local communities that depend on local news coverage; and news consumers who supporters argue would benefit from a more financially sustainable local news ecosystem.
Who is hurt
Large online platforms (e.g., major social media companies and search engines) that would face mandatory negotiations and potential content restrictions; consumers who could see reduced access to news content on those platforms if negotiations break down; larger national news networks explicitly excluded from the bill's protections; and potentially smaller digital platforms that meet the user-count threshold but have limited revenue, facing compliance costs disproportionate to their size.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that large online platforms have accumulated enormous market power that leaves individual news organizations — especially local outlets — with no meaningful ability to negotiate fair compensation for the journalism those platforms distribute and profit from. Because antitrust law currently prevents news organizations from coordinating, each outlet must negotiate alone against platforms with billions of dollars in resources, creating a structural imbalance that has contributed to the collapse of local newsrooms across the country. This bill would level the playing field by granting a narrow, time-limited antitrust exemption solely for the purpose of collective bargaining, a tool already available to workers and other industries. The mandatory good-faith negotiation requirement and arbitration backstop would ensure the process is fair to both sides, and the six-year sunset clause limits any long-term market distortion. Supporters contend that a financially healthier local news industry produces better-informed communities and stronger democratic participation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would grant a special-interest carve-out from antitrust law that benefits a specific industry at the expense of consumers and market competition. By allowing news organizations to collectively withhold content from platforms, the bill could reduce the free flow of information that millions of Americans rely on daily. Critics contend that platforms already provide news outlets with substantial free traffic and audience reach, meaning publishers receive significant value without direct payment, and that mandating compensation negotiations distorts a market that functions through mutual benefit. Opponents also raise First Amendment concerns, arguing that compelling platforms to carry or pay for content interferes with their editorial discretion, a principle affirmed in cases like Moody v. NetChoice. Additionally, some argue the bill's eligibility criteria arbitrarily exclude large national outlets while benefiting mid-sized commercial publishers, and that the antitrust exemption could be used to coordinate behavior beyond fair compensation, such as suppressing competing digital news startups.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates several constitutional provisions and recent cases. The Commerce Clause grants Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, which provides the primary basis for regulating platform-publisher relationships. The First Amendment is relevant on two fronts: news organizations have editorial and expressive rights, but so do platforms — Moody v. NetChoice (2024) reaffirmed that platforms retain some editorial discretion in content curation. Compelling platforms to negotiate over content access or pay for content could be challenged as compelled speech or compelled association. The IP Clause is tangentially relevant to the question of whether news content constitutes protectable intellectual property. The bill's antitrust exemption also raises Due Process questions regarding fair treatment of excluded parties (e.g., large networks). The end of Chevron deference (Loper Bright) means any agency rules implementing this bill would face independent judicial scrutiny.
Checks and balances
The bill primarily shifts bargaining authority to the legislative branch by creating a statutory antitrust exemption, bypassing the executive branch's typical antitrust enforcement role (DOJ, FTC). The GAO study requirement gives Congress an oversight mechanism. Courts would gain authority through the private right of action and arbitration review provisions. The six-year sunset clause preserves future congressional control over whether the framework continues.
Historical precedent
The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 similarly granted a limited antitrust exemption to allow competing newspapers in the same market to share printing and business operations while maintaining separate editorial operations, representing the closest historical parallel to a sector-specific antitrust carve-out for the news industry.