Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill (SEAT Act of 2025) requires third-party restaurant reservation services to have a written agreement with a food service establishment or its contractual designee before listing, promoting, selling, or otherwise making reservations available. Violations are deemed unfair or deceptive practices enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission with the same powers and penalties under the FTC Act.
Liberals emphasize protecting small businesses and banning one-sided clauses
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive regulatory change that is generally well-structured: it sets a clear prohibition, supplies definitions, voids certain contractual provisions, and delegates enforcement to the FTC under the FTC Act with a 180-day delayed effective date.
The bill (SEAT Act of 2025) requires third-party restaurant reservation services to have a written agreement with a food service establishment or its contractual designee before listing, promoting, selling, or otherwise making reservations available.
Violations are deemed unfair or deceptive practices enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission with the same powers and penalties under the FTC Act.
The law forbids contract provisions that force restaurants to indemnify reservation services for harms caused by the service.
Targeted, administrable reform with modest fiscal footprint but strong platform stakeholders and litigation risk lower enactment probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive regulatory change that is generally well-structured: it sets a clear prohibition, supplies definitions, voids certain contractual provisions, and delegates enforcement to the FTC under the FTC Act with a 180-day delayed effective date.
Liberals emphasize protecting small businesses and banning one-sided clauses
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize protecting small businesses and banning one-sided clauses
Generally favorable: sees the bill as protecting small and independent restaurants from platform overreach and nonconsensual listings.
Views the FTC enforcement and prohibition of indemnification as necessary consumer and business protections.
Might still want clearer provisions protecting consumers and workers from unintended harms.
Cautiously supportive: appreciates clarifying contractual rights and preventing exploitative platform practices.
Wants to balance restaurant control with consumer convenience and minimize regulatory complexity.
Seeks implementation details and phased compliance to limit small business burdens.
Mixed to mildly supportive: favors protecting restaurants' control over reservations and limiting platform freeloading.
Worries about expanding FTC enforcement authority and federal interference in private contracts.
Concerned that banning indemnities and imposing federal rules may hinder voluntary private contracting and innovation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted, administrable reform with modest fiscal footprint but strong platform stakeholders and litigation risk lower enactment probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize protecting small businesses and banning one-sided clauses
Targeted, administrable reform with modest fiscal footprint but strong platform stakeholders and litigation risk lower enactment probabilit…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive regulatory change that is generally well-structured: it sets a clear prohibition, supplies definitions, voids certain contractual provisions,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.