The Pro Codes Act adds a new section to Title 17 that ties copyright protection for technical and voluntary consensus standards to a practical access obligation: a standards development organization (SDO) must make any standard incorporated by reference into a federal, state, local, or municipal law freely available online in an accessible, searchable format within a reasonable time after notice, or risk losing certain protections. The bill codifies definitions and minimum requirements for what counts as “publicly accessible online,” and places the burden on challengers to prove noncompliance.
This changes the legal landscape around incorporating privately authored standards into binding law by creating a statutory pathway that preserves SDOs’ copyrights only if they provide no-cost, readable online access that meets accessibility and usability criteria. The provision aims to reconcile two competing interests—preserving the revenue model that funds standards development and ensuring the public can read the law those standards become part of.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts §123 into Title 17. It defines key terms (including ‘‘incorporated by reference’’ and ‘‘publicly accessible online’’), and conditions retention of copyright on SDOs’ timely posting of incorporated standards at no monetary cost with searchable navigation aids and Section 508-compliant display.
Who It Affects
Standards development organizations (copyright holders), federal/state/local agencies that incorporate standards by reference, publishers and licensees that sell access to standards, and members of the public and regulated businesses who need to read legally binding standards.
Why It Matters
It creates a statutory mechanism to guarantee public access to privately authored standards that become law while attempting to preserve SDOs’ revenue-based incentives—potentially changing licensing practices, procurement, and how governments rely on private standards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new, standalone rule in the Copyright Act for standards that governments incorporate by reference into law or regulation. Rather than declaring such standards automatically public domain, it preserves the standard-holder’s copyright provided that the holder makes the exact text publicly available online for free and in a form that people can actually use.
That availability must include navigation aids—either a searchable table of contents and index or equivalent tools—and must conform to Section 508 accessibility requirements.
The Act specifies what ‘‘publicly accessible online’’ means: the material must be viewable on a public website and can still be considered accessible even if users must create an account or agree to terms of service, so long as there is no fee and personally identifiable information collected under that requirement is not used without the user’s affirmative consent. The statute thus permits read-only or gated-but-free access models, but it disallows paywalls or mandatory, non-consensual data harvesting as a condition of access.Procedurally, an SDO keeps its copyright only if, within a ‘‘reasonable period of time’’ after it receives actual or constructive notice that a government has incorporated a standard by reference, it posts the material in compliance with the Act’s format and accessibility rules.
The bill does not set a fixed clock for this ‘‘reasonable period,’’ leaving timing to be resolved in disputes. If a party alleges the SDO failed to comply, that party bears the burden of proving noncompliance in any enforcing proceeding.The new section explicitly anchors its definitions and expectations to existing policy guidance—Circular A–119—and applies to standards incorporated by reference at the federal, state, local, or municipal level.
The measure therefore alters the bargaining space between governments and SDOs: governments retain the ability to incorporate standards but can expect broader public access post-incorporation, while SDOs retain copyright only if they accept the free-access condition. How market practice shifts—subscription models, licensing terms, government procurement language, or private litigation—will depend on how ‘‘reasonable period’’ and technical access details are interpreted and enforced.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 123(b) preserves copyright in a standard only if the standards development organization posts the incorporated standard online at no monetary cost and with searchable navigation aids.
The bill’s definition of ‘publicly accessible online’ requires Section 508 conformance and permits account-creation or terms-of-service gates only if access is free and any PII collected isn’t used absent explicit consent.
Copyright retention is conditioned on the SDO posting the standard within a ‘reasonable period of time’ after actual or constructive notice that the standard was incorporated by reference; the statute does not define that period.
Subsection (c) places the burden of proof on the party asserting noncompliance—challengers must prove an SDO failed to satisfy the posting and accessibility requirements.
The amendment adds §123 to chapter 1 of Title 17 and explicitly ties its vocabulary and expectations to Circular A–119’s framework for voluntary consensus standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the ‘‘Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act of 2026’’ or ‘‘Pro Codes Act of 2026.’
Findings framing purpose and policy context
Lists Congress’s reasons for the bill: recognition of the public value of voluntary consensus standards, the existing incorporation-by-reference practice across federal and state governments, reliance on SDOs’ revenue models, and the desire to balance continued standards development with public access. The findings explicitly cite Circular A–119 and note the scope of existing incorporation in the CFR to justify a statutory approach rather than declaring incorporated standards public domain.
Defines core terms (e.g., incorporated by reference, publicly accessible online, standard, SDO, Circular A–119)
Provides working definitions that control how the access obligation operates. ‘‘Incorporated by reference’’ covers any law/regulation that points to a standard without reproducing its text. ‘‘Publicly accessible online’’ requires display on a public website and Section 508 accessibility; it allows non-monetary gating (account creation/terms of service) so long as there is no fee and any PII collected is used only with affirmative consent. The definitions also import the concept of technical and voluntary consensus standards and define an SDO by its adherence to openness, balance, due process, appeals, and consensus consistent with Circular A–119.
Conditions copyright on timely, free, accessible posting and navigation aids
Establishes the central legal rule: a standard that is incorporated by reference retains copyright if the standards holder, within a reasonable period after actual or constructive notice of incorporation, posts the full text online at no cost in a format that includes a searchable table of contents and index or equivalent tools. This is the operative compliance obligation that both preserves SDOs’ rights and mandates public access when private standards become law.
Burden of proof and technical conforming change
Places the evidentiary burden on the challenger to show an SDO failed to meet the posting/access requirements in any enforcement proceeding. The bill also amends the Title 17 table of sections to add §123. Together, these mechanics shape enforcement realities: challengers must bring proof, but courts will ultimately interpret ‘‘reasonable period’’ and whether posted formats satisfy the statutory navigation and accessibility requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Members of the public and regulated entities — they gain guaranteed, no-cost online reading access to standards once those standards are incorporated by reference, improving transparency and compliance.
- Federal, state, and local governments — they get clearer rules about public access expectations tied to standards they adopt, reducing legal uncertainty about whether incorporation by reference makes standards effectively unavailable to those governed by them.
- Standards development organizations that already provide free online read-only access — those SDOs receive statutory protection for their copyrights without changing business models, gaining predictable treatment and a competitive advantage over paywalled peers.
- Compliance officers and regulated firms — easier access to the exact text of legally binding standards reduces compliance risk and costs associated with procuring proprietary copies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Standards development organizations that rely on paywalled sales — they must host standards online for free and build searchable, Section 508-compliant presentations, which may reduce license revenue or require changes to business models.
- Publishers and resellers of standards — organizations that sell subscriptions or copies could see reduced market demand for paid access to standards that governments incorporate by reference.
- Small SDOs or niche publishers — the technical, accessibility, and hosting costs required to meet Section 508 and index/search expectations could impose nontrivial operational burdens, especially if revenue declines.
- Government procurement and legal offices — agencies may face additional negotiation complexity when incorporating standards, and may need to craft notices or acquisition language to trigger SDO posting and to verify compliance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: incentivize private organizations to invest in creating and updating technical standards through enforceable copyright, or guarantee universal, free access to the exact text of standards that have been folded into law; the bill tries to do both, but leaving key implementation definitions open shifts the trade-offs into courts, markets, and procurement negotiations rather than resolving them administratively.
The bill balances access and incentives by conditioning, not eliminating, copyright; however, several implementation questions create real uncertainty. ‘‘Reasonable period of time’’ is dispositive for when posting must occur but is undefined, leaving timing disputes for courts and increasing litigation risk for both challengers and SDOs. The statute’s allowance for account-based access protects SDOs’ existing gated-read models, but the requirement that any PII collected for access not be used without affirmative consent raises novel privacy and operational questions for sites that rely on analytics or identification as part of their business.
The Section 508 requirement promotes accessibility but imposes technical costs and design obligations that smaller SDOs may struggle to meet. The bill also does not prescribe whether read-only display, downloadable PDFs, or alternate formats meet the ‘‘searchable table of contents and index’’ requirement—courts will likely need to decide whether embedded search functions, full-text search, or structured metadata suffice.
Finally, conditioning copyright on post-incorporation posting may incentivize some SDOs to withhold consent to incorporation, renegotiate licensing terms preemptively, or alter update cadences—all management responses that could complicate government reliance on voluntary consensus standards even while preserving an SDO’s right to revenue in other contexts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.