HB4094—Electronic Consent Accountability Act of 2025—requires the head of each listed federal agency to report to Congress within 120 days on whether they have implemented the OMB guidance described in M-21-04, which governs consent for disclosure of personal information. The bill specifies a defined set of 16 agencies and directs the reports to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
If an agency has not implemented the guidance, the report must include a justification, a plan with a timeline, and the steps the agency will take to bring itself into compliance. The act codifies a clear, time-bound accountability mechanism focused on electronic consent and privacy disclosures, without changing policy beyond establishing this reporting duty.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 3 requires the head of each of 16 named agencies to submit to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee a report within 120 days of enactment. The report asks whether the agency has implemented the “covered responsibilities” from OMB’s M–21–04 guidance and, if not, requires justification, an implementation timeline, and planned steps.
Who It Affects
Agency privacy and records management offices, CIOs, and legal teams at the 16 listed agencies, plus Congress (the reporting committee) and OMB as the source of the guidance being evaluated.
Why It Matters
This creates an auditable record of how agencies are adopting modern consent practices for personal-data disclosures, enabling Congress to assess progress and identify gaps in implementation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Electronic Consent Accountability Act of 2025 centers on transparency and accountability for federal agencies’ handling of personal information. It targets 16 named agencies and requires their leadership—specifically the agency heads—to report within 120 days on whether they have implemented the set of responsibilities described in OMB’s M–21–04 guidance, which covers electronic identity proofing, templates for consent forms, and the acceptance of electronic consent once identity verification is complete.
The required report must describe whether the agency has implemented those responsibilities, and if not, provide justification, a concrete implementation timeline, and the steps being taken to reach compliance. The Section 3 reporting obligation is directed to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, creating a formal mechanism for Congress to track progress against the guidance.
The bill anchors this effort in statutory text but does not alter policy; rather, it formalizes a structured reporting discipline around consent and disclosure practices that already exist in OMB guidance. The inclusion of 16 major agencies ensures a broad view of how federal programs manage personal information and consent, and sets a baseline for future accountability measures.”,
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires 16 specified federal agencies to report within 120 days of enactment.
Reports must address whether the agency implemented the M–21–04-covered responsibilities.
“Covered responsibilities” originate from the OMB’s November 12, 2020 memo on privacy and consent.
The reporting goes to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The bill codifies an explicit, time-bound accountability mechanism for consent-related disclosures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 provides the official short title of the act: Electronic Consent Accountability Act of 2025. This section names the bill and establishes its identity for reference in policy discussions and future oversight.
Findings
Section 2 lays out the findings that motivate the bill. It references GAO observations that agencies should fully implement OMB guidance on personal-information disclosure and notes the CASES Act lineage, which directed OMB to issue guidance on electronic identity proofing, consent form templates, and authenticated electronic consent. It anchors the policy context for the reporting requirement that follows.
Report to Congress on implementation of guidance
Section 3 is the core mechanism: the head of each listed agency must submit a report to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee not later than 120 days after enactment. The report must state whether the agency has implemented the covered responsibilities and, if not, include justification, a planned timeline, and the steps the agency will take to implement them. The section also enumerates the 16 agencies subject to the reporting mandate, spanning departments from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs, plus independent agencies such as the EEOC and NARA, and it defines the scope of the “covered responsibilities” by reference to M–21–04.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Agency privacy and records management offices at the 16 listed agencies, which now have a clear, codified expectation and a path to demonstrate compliance.
- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which gains timely, structured information to inform oversight.
- Privacy advocates and the public, who benefit from greater transparency about how personal information is disclosed by federal agencies.
- OMB, which provides the guiding framework and can use the reports to align agency practices with policy intent.
- GAO, which can use the agency reports as a basis for future performance audits and evaluations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agency heads and their staffs, who must allocate time and resources to collect data, draft, and submit the reports.
- Agency IT and privacy staff, who may need to compile records, verify compliance, and document implementation steps.
- OMB staff time to coordinate with agencies and review submitted reports.
- House staff and committee resources to review and respond to 16 agency reports.
- External contractors or consultants engaged to assist with data gathering or reporting where internal capacity falls short.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is whether a reporting obligation alone can drive substantive, cross-agency adoption of consent and disclosure standards, or if stronger enforcement tools and ongoing monitoring are needed to translate guidance into uniform practice across diverse agencies.
The bill creates a formal reporting requirement but does not prescribe penalties tied to noncompliance beyond the formal reporting. That design choice means accountability relies on timely disclosure and congressional oversight rather than mandatory enforcement mechanisms within the statute.
Implementation challenges could arise from varying agency capacities, complex IT environments, and differences in how each agency interprets and applies M–21–04 guidance. The effectiveness of the reporting requirement will depend on the consistency of data across agencies and the quality of the justifications and timelines provided.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.