H.R. 3437 (119th)Bill Overview

Insurance Data Protection Act

Finance and Financial Sector|Finance and Financial Sector
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 15, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consi…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill restricts federal financial regulators — including the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and certain OFR authorities — from collecting data directly from insurance companies without first seeking existing sources. It removes or limits certain subpoena/enforcement authorities, requires coordinative pre‑collection searches (including state regulators and public sources), mandates Paperwork Reduction Act compliance before collecting data, and strengthens confidentiality and nonwaiver protections for nonpublic insurer data.

Why people may split

Liberals fear weakened federal oversight; conservatives emphasize limiting federal power

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly effects substantive legal change by amending specific statutes and inserting defined duties and confidentiality protections.

The bill restricts federal financial regulators — including the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and certain OFR authorities — from collecting data directly from insurance companies without first seeking existing sources.

It removes or limits certain subpoena/enforcement authorities, requires coordinative pre‑collection searches (including state regulators and public sources), mandates Paperwork Reduction Act compliance before collecting data, and strengthens confidentiality and nonwaiver protections for nonpublic insurer data.

The bill also clarifies that FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) exceptions apply to data submitted and codifies these rules into the Financial Stability Act (Dodd‑Frank) structure.

Passage35/100

Targeted, non‑spending deregulatory bill has supporters among industry and states but faces institutional resistance and Senate hurdles.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly effects substantive legal change by amending specific statutes and inserting defined duties and confidentiality protections. It integrates with existing law and sets out concrete mechanisms (source-first requirement, PRA compliance, privilege retention).

Contention70/100

Liberals fear weakened federal oversight; conservatives emphasize limiting federal power

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agencies · StatesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesPreserves insurer nonpublic data and trade secrets from direct federal collection.
  • Federal agenciesReduces duplicative federal data requests, lowering compliance burdens on insurers.
  • StatesReinforces coordination with state insurance regulators and supports state regulatory primacy.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesMay impede federal regulators’ timely access to insurer data needed for systemic risk monitoring.
  • Potential burdenCoordination and PRA requirements could delay data collection during financial stress or crises.
  • Federal agenciesIncreases administrative and coordination costs for federal agencies seeking insurer information.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals fear weakened federal oversight; conservatives emphasize limiting federal power
Progressive25%

Skeptical.

Likely to view the bill as shifting oversight power away from federal regulators and toward insurers and state regulators, potentially weakening federal monitoring.

May appreciate stronger confidentiality for consumer data but worry about reduced enforcement and data gaps for systemic risk analysis.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Cautiously mixed.

Appreciates reduced redundant demands and coordination with state regulators, while worrying about potential delays or gaps in data that could harm oversight.

Focused on implementation details and safeguards for prompt crisis access.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Supportive.

Views the bill as a necessary limitation on federal overreach into the insurance sector, protecting proprietary information and reinforcing state primacy.

Likely welcomes removal of broad subpoena powers and additional confidentiality safeguards.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Targeted, non‑spending deregulatory bill has supporters among industry and states but faces institutional resistance and Senate hurdles.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Absent cost or regulatory impact assessment
  • State insurance regulator positions vary by state
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals fear weakened federal oversight; conservatives emphasize limiting federal power

Targeted, non‑spending deregulatory bill has supporters among industry and states but faces institutional resistance and Senate hurdles.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly effects substantive legal change by amending specific statutes and inserting defined duties and confidentiality protections. It integrates with existing law a…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis