Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 90.
Establishes an NTIA-led working group on cyber insurance with federal agency, state regulator, industry, and stakeholder consultation. The group must analyze policy language, link coverage to cyber incidents and customer responses, identify ways to expand coverage, and report to Congress within one year.
Whether voluntary guidance is sufficient or stronger regulation needed
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed study/working-group mandate: it specifies membership, duties, consultation requirements, deliverable timelines, publication expectations, and termination on report, but it omits any funding or resourcing direction and provides limited treatment of data/confidentiality and follow-up metrics.
Establishes an NTIA-led working group on cyber insurance with federal agency, state regulator, industry, and stakeholder consultation.
The group must analyze policy language, link coverage to cyber incidents and customer responses, identify ways to expand coverage, and report to Congress within one year.
After the report, NTIA must publish and promote voluntary, publicly available guidance and resources for issuers, brokers, and customers on the NTIA website.
Content is low-risk and bipartisan-appealing, improving odds; absence of funding and low legislative priority temper likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed study/working-group mandate: it specifies membership, duties, consultation requirements, deliverable timelines, publication expectations, and termination on report, but it omits any funding or resourcing direction and provides limited treatment of data/confidentiality and follow-up metrics.
Whether voluntary guidance is sufficient or stronger regulation needed
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether voluntary guidance is sufficient or stronger regulation needed
Generally supportive because the bill advances consumer clarity, transparency, and market tools that can benefit small businesses and vulnerable customers.
Concerned the bill is limited to voluntary guidance and lacks enforceable consumer protections, affordability measures, or explicit equity focus.
Will likely push for stronger regulatory follow‑ups and protections for small entities.
Favorable as a low‑cost, pragmatic federal convening to reduce market confusion and improve data for insurers and customers.
Values the clear timeline and interagency composition but will watch for duplication with state regulators and practical effects on coverage availability and premiums.
Skeptical because it expands federal coordination into insurance markets and could become a stepping stone to more federal involvement.
Some acceptance since the bill only mandates informational work and explicitly disclaims new regulatory authority, but wary of federal guidance raising compliance costs or shaping markets indirectly.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is low-risk and bipartisan-appealing, improving odds; absence of funding and low legislative priority temper likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether voluntary guidance is sufficient or stronger regulation needed
Content is low-risk and bipartisan-appealing, improving odds; absence of funding and low legislative priority temper likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed study/working-group mandate: it specifies membership, duties, consultation requirements, deliverable timelines, publication expectations, and te…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.