S. 658 (119th)Bill Overview

Protecting Investors’ Personally Identifiable Information Act

Finance and Financial Sector|Finance and Financial Sector
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 20, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

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

The bill bars the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring personally identifiable information (PII) in consolidated audit trail (CAT) reporting under 17 C.F.R. §242.613(c)(7). It defines PII (name, address, birth date/year, SSN, phone, email, IP address) and permits the SEC to request such data only for investigations or enforcement related to Federal securities laws.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize enforcement and investigation impairment

Watch point

Narrow, technical privacy measure with no cost increases; likely to attract bipartisan support but could meet regulatory pushback.

The bill bars the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring personally identifiable information (PII) in consolidated audit trail (CAT) reporting under 17 C.F.R. §242.613(c)(7).

It defines PII (name, address, birth date/year, SSN, phone, email, IP address) and permits the SEC to request such data only for investigations or enforcement related to Federal securities laws.

Exchanges or members must produce requested PII within 24 hours unless a reasonable extension is granted.

Passage40/100

Limited scope and bipartisan-appeal features improve prospects, but agency resistance and concerns about enforcement effectiveness create friction.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention68/100

Progressives emphasize enforcement and investigation impairment

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesLikely burdened

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

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesReduces routine federal collection of investors' personally identifiable information, enhancing privacy protections.
  • Potential benefitLowers risk that consolidated audit trail data breaches would expose investors' sensitive identifiers.
  • Potential benefitMay reduce data storage and continuous retention costs for exchanges and data repositories.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenCould hinder real‑time market surveillance and delay detection of manipulative trading patterns.
  • Potential burdenRequiring case‑by‑case requests may slow investigations and enforcement compared with routine access.
  • Potential burdenThe one‑day destruction mandate may conflict with evidence retention needs for prosecutions or legal discovery.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize enforcement and investigation impairment
Progressive35%

Supports stronger investor privacy but worries the prohibition could weaken market surveillance and enforcement.

Concerned the one-day destruction requirement is impractical and may conflict with evidence preservation.

Would prefer privacy protections paired with clear, enforceable procedures for investigations and oversight.

Likely resistant
Centrist60%

Sees a reasonable goal balancing privacy and enforcement but notes practical and legal tradeoffs.

Wants clearer definitions and operational rules for requests, retention, and destruction.

Likely to support if amendments address feasibility and evidentiary requirements.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Favorable: reduces SEC authority to collect sensitive investor data and limits federal data accumulation.

Views the investigative exception and short retention requirement as adequate checks.

Sees the bill as protecting privacy and curbing regulatory overreach.

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 likelihood40/100

Limited scope and bipartisan-appeal features improve prospects, but agency resistance and concerns about enforcement effectiveness create friction.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No formal cost or implementation analysis included
  • How SEC and self-regulatory organizations would adapt operationally
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

Progressives emphasize enforcement and investigation impairment

Limited scope and bipartisan-appeal features improve prospects, but agency resistance and concerns about enforcement effectiveness create f…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Protecting Investors’ Personally Identifiable Information Act.

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