Congress Wants To Put The Law Behind A Paywall. Again.

Why It Matters

If passed, the Act would restrict free public access to essential safety codes, undermining transparency and setting a precedent for privatizing legal texts. This could jeopardize compliance, public safety, and the work of nonprofit platforms that currently provide unrestricted access.

Key Takeaways

• Pro Codes Act seeks copyright for incorporated standards.
• Courts have consistently ruled law is public domain.
• SDOs stand to profit, CEOs earn over $1M.
• Bill limits download, print, linking of standards.
• Coalition opposes, citing transparency and safety risks.

Pulse Analysis

The principle that statutes and regulations belong to the public has been reinforced by the Supreme Court and multiple circuit courts over the past two decades. When a private standard—such as a building or fire code—is incorporated by reference into a law, courts have consistently held that the text becomes part of the public domain, free for anyone to read, copy, or redistribute. This doctrine safeguards transparency, enables compliance, and prevents a monopoly over the rules that govern everyday safety and construction.

The newly reintroduced Pro Codes Act, sponsored by Senators Coons, Cornyn, Hirono and Tillis, attempts to overturn that doctrine by granting copyright protection to incorporated standards. Proponents argue the change will protect the revenue streams of standards‑development organizations (SDOs) like the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, whose CEOs now earn roughly $1 million annually. In practice, the bill would allow only read‑only, water‑marked online views, barring download, printing or linking—effectively turning the law into a pay‑walled product while preserving SDO profits.

Libraries, journalists, disability advocates and civil‑rights groups have mobilized against the measure, warning that restricted access undermines public safety, hampers innovation, and sets a dangerous precedent for privatizing legal texts. If enacted, the law could expose free‑access platforms such as Public.Resource.Org and UpCodes to copyright liability, chilling the very organizations that currently democratize code compliance. The bill’s failure to clear a committee hearing reflects bipartisan recognition that the public’s right to read the law outweighs private profit motives.