H.R. 6048: NDO Fairness Act of 2025

This bill would change the rules for when the government can keep a customer or subscriber in the dark after getting certain legal demands for electronic records, such as warrants, court orders, or subpoenas directed to internet, email, cloud, or other electronic service providers.

What it changes

• It lets the government ask a court for an order telling a provider not to notify the customer or subscriber about the demand for records.
• Such a nondisclosure order would have to be limited in time:
  • Up to 1 year for investigations involving child pornography or sexual exploitation of children, or substantially equivalent offenses.
  • Up to 90 days for other investigations.
• The government would have to explain, to the best of its knowledge, whether the person whose records are sought already knows about the demand or is suspected of the crime being investigated.
• The court could not approve the nondisclosure order unless it makes written findings, based on specific facts, that notifying the person would likely cause one or more harms, such as:
  • danger to someone’s life or physical safety,
  • flight from prosecution,
  • destruction or tampering with evidence,
  • intimidation of witnesses, or
  • serious harm to the investigation or trial.
• The court would also have to find that the order is narrowly tailored and that there is no less restrictive alternative.
• For child sexual exploitation-related cases, the court could presume the harm requirement is met.

Extensions, changes, and challenges

• The government could ask for extensions, but each extension could be no longer than 90 days, and the court would have to make the same type of findings again.
• If circumstances change materially, the government would have to tell the court within 14 days, and the court would review whether to change or end the order.
• The service provider could ask the court to modify or отменate the order if it does not meet the legal requirements or if complying would be unreasonable or unlawful.
• While a provider challenges the order, disclosure would generally be paused for 72 hours unless the court changes that pause.

What providers and affected customers would learn

• The bill allows providers to tell certain people about the order when needed to comply with it or get legal advice.
• After the nondisclosure period ends, the government would have to notify the customer or subscriber within 5 business days using at least two methods of notice.
• That notice would have to include a copy of the warrant, order, or subpoena, plus information about the investigation, the fact that notice was delayed by court order, the court involved, and the legal authority used.
• If the customer or subscriber asks within 180 days, the government would generally have to provide a copy of the information it obtained, or a certification that no information was disclosed, with limited exceptions for illicit or illegal material and certain child exploitation material.
• Redactions of that post-notice material would be allowed only if a court finds they are needed to protect the secrecy or integrity of an investigation.

Reporting requirement

• The Attorney General would have to publish an annual report to Congress and on the Department of Justice website, with district-by-district totals showing:
  • how many people were the subject of warrants, subpoenas, or orders under this law,
  • how many applications were made to delay notice or preclude notice,
  • how many were granted, extended, or denied,
  • how many involved members of the news media or First Amendment-related activity, and
  • how many arrests, trials, and convictions resulted from investigations using these orders.
• The report would also have to describe how the numbers were determined.

Relevant Companies

• None found