The Online Sellers’ Bill of Rights Act of 2026 (H.R. 9799) starts with a legitimate problem: disputes between online platforms and sellers can be frustrating for all parties and can particularly harm consumers. From a seller’s perspective, a mistaken platform suspension can cut off revenue and strand inventory without a useful explanation. But the legislation gets the solutions all wrong by creating broad FTC rulemaking authority and a private right of action with mandatory treble damages.
If Congress intends to address this topic, it should do so without creating a federal lawsuit for every covered dispute.
Congress has not documented a nationwide failure
The bill’s findings say small businesses depend on dominant marketplaces and can lose access to inventory or funds without enough recourse. Yet the findings offer no data on wrongful decisions, appeal times, lost revenue, or reversal rates.
The sponsor’s release describes sellers who received limited explanations while funds or listings remained restricted. Congress should examine those accounts, but they do not show that disputes between covered companies and sellers warrant a federal process.
A March 2025 Data Catalyst survey sponsored by the Connected Commerce Council covered 1,500 small and medium-sized online sellers. It found that 70% used more than one sales method and that marketplace sellers used four marketplaces on average. Those results do not mean every seller can switch platforms easily, but Congress needs more evidence before adopting one nationwide liability regime.
Vague definitions expand the bill’s reach
The bill does not define “online seller,” “online platform,” “dominant platform,” “trading partner,” or “business user.” Its definition of “critical trading partner” could reach payment processors, logistics companies, app stores, and software providers. Many of those companies do not operate retail marketplaces or hold seller inventory.
The bill also shifts between regulated groups. Section 3 regulates critical trading partners and online sellers, while Section 4 creates liability for a person operating an online platform. It never explains whether those groups are the same.
National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has criticized the same “critical trading partner” language in earlier platform legislation because the wording leaves the FTC too much latitude to decide which companies are covered. H.R. 9799 goes further: it drops the requirement that the partner own or control an online platform, so any partner able to impede a business user’s access may qualify.
The bill overlooks existing compliance duties
Federal law already imposes seller-verification and product-safety duties on covered platforms. The INFORM Consumers Act requires covered marketplaces to verify information from high-volume third-party sellers. The FTC and Justice Department brought the first INFORM Act case in 2025. The settlement includes a $2 million civil penalty against Temu.
Senate Judiciary Committee staff for Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) reported nearly 40,000 high-volume seller suspensions, based on responses from 46 marketplace companies. Nearly 20,000 sellers were reinstated after coming into compliance. Suspension and reinstatement can therefore be parts of a compliance process, and a suspension alone does not show that a platform acted arbitrarily.
A January 2025 Consumer Product Safety Commission order required Amazon to provide notice and refunds concerning more than 400,000 hazardous units sold through Fulfilled by Amazon. CPSC had found Amazon was acting as a distributor under federal safety law, but the Commission stayed the order in February 2025 during judicial review. That history matters because a platform may need to act before every seller question is resolved.
These duties matter when evaluating the bill’s deadlines. H.R. 9799 generally caps a fund hold at 30 days. A longer hold would require proof that the funds came from unlawful transactions. That exception does not clearly cover a lawful sale followed by a refund, chargeback, seller fee, or another documented obligation.
The bill would also require platforms to disclose reports or documents from an investigation. It does not expressly protect confidential complainants or active law-enforcement work. The text also omits protections for trade secrets and fraud controls. Section 3 directs the FTC to consider public health and safety, but the policy-change provision contains no express exception for an urgent safety or fraud response.
Treble damages turn disputes into federal litigation
Section 4 would treat a violation as an unfair method of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and state attorneys general could sue. The bill also overrides mandatory arbitration and provides that “any person who shall be injured by reason of anything prohibited by this act may bring a civil action.”
The bill would give the FTC new rulemaking and enforcement responsibilities, but it provides no specific appropriation. A search of CBO’s published cost estimates found no estimate for H.R. 9799 as of September 28, 2026.
A successful private plaintiff would receive three times the proven damages, along with litigation costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee. Those remedies apply without a cure period or a requirement to complete an internal appeal. The bill does not reserve enhanced damages for intentional or repeated misconduct, and it leaves “injury” undefined.
Automatic treble damages and one-way fee shifting would raise the stakes of routine disputes before Congress has required sellers to complete an internal appeal. NTU has raised the same concern about private rights of action and marketplace mandates in other bills.
Protect sellers without automatic treble damages
If Congress intends to advance H.R. 9799 or similar legislation, it should first document the scope of the problem by examining error rates, appeal times, lost revenue, and reversal rates. Any new statute should define the platforms and sellers it covers. It should also identify covered services.
Platforms must retain authority to act immediately against fraud, unsafe goods, chargebacks, and other legal violations. Sellers should still receive useful notice and a meaningful internal appeal. Private recovery should require a defined, material injury caused by the violation, and treble damages should be limited to intentional or repeated misconduct.
A federal liability regime should respond to documented failures, and H.R. 9799 has not yet shown them.