- Potential benefitMay increase startups' access to accredited investors by allowing public presentations at qualified events.
- Potential benefitCould reduce compliance costs and legal uncertainty for issuers using private offering exemptions.
- Potential benefitMay expand deal flow and networking opportunities for angel investor groups and accelerators.
HALOS Act of 2025
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The HALOS Act directs the SEC to amend Regulation D within six months so that presentations or communications by or on behalf of an issuer at certain sponsored events do not count as general solicitation. Eligible events include those sponsored by governments, universities, nonprofits, angel investor groups, incubators/accelerators, venture forums, trade associations, and other SEC-defined entities, subject to sponsor and issuer conditions and limited permitted offering disclosures.
Progressives stress investor protection and fraud risk concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a focused, legally specific directive to the SEC to amend Regulation D to exempt certain issuer presentations at defined events from the general solicitation prohibition, with explicit sponsor and issuer constraints and a short statutory deadline for rulemaking.
The HALOS Act directs the SEC to amend Regulation D within six months so that presentations or communications by or on behalf of an issuer at certain sponsored events do not count as general solicitation.
Eligible events include those sponsored by governments, universities, nonprofits, angel investor groups, incubators/accelerators, venture forums, trade associations, and other SEC-defined entities, subject to sponsor and issuer conditions and limited permitted offering disclosures.
The sponsor must meet conditions (no investment advice, limited fees, one-page risk disclosure, no brokerage compensation), events cannot advertise specific offerings, and attendance alone does not create a pre-existing substantive relationship for Rule 506(b).
Technocratic, narrow mandate improves prospects, but regulatory pushback, Senate hurdles, and possible litigation reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a focused, legally specific directive to the SEC to amend Regulation D to exempt certain issuer presentations at defined events from the general solicitation prohibition, with explicit sponsor and issuer constraints and a short statutory deadline for rulemaking.
Progressives stress investor protection and fraud risk concerns
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Potential burdenMay increase investor protection risks if broader solicitations reach less sophisticated participants.
- Potential burdenCould create enforcement and supervision challenges for the SEC monitoring event-based communications.
- Potential burdenSponsors may face unclear liability boundaries despite restrictions, raising legal risk and compliance costs.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives stress investor protection and fraud risk concerns
Cautious support with reservations.
The persona would welcome clearer pathways for early-stage fundraising and community-based investing, but worries about reduced investor protections and possible circumvention of registration rules.
Concern centers on fraud risk and adequate SEC enforcement and disclosure requirements.
Generally favorable, viewing the bill as a pragmatic clarification that reduces legal uncertainty for issuers and sponsors.
The persona values capital formation for startups while wanting the SEC to craft narrow, enforceable implementing rules and monitoring to limit abuse.
Strongly supportive.
The persona sees the bill as a targeted deregulatory step that frees startups and angel groups to convene capital without fear of general solicitation rules.
Emphasis is on promoting entrepreneurship and minimizing transactional friction with limited new compliance burdens.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, narrow mandate improves prospects, but regulatory pushback, Senate hurdles, and possible litigation reduce likelihood.
- How the SEC will interpret and implement the statutory directions
- Strength of opposition from investor-protection advocates
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives stress investor protection and fraud risk concerns
Technocratic, narrow mandate improves prospects, but regulatory pushback, Senate hurdles, and possible litigation reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a focused, legally specific directive to the SEC to amend Regulation D to exempt certain issuer presentations at defined events from the general solicitation…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.