H.R.2076 - Lulu’s Law (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 2076, also known as "Lulu's Law," directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue an order that would allow wireless emergency alerts to be transmitted in the event of a shark attack. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 11, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill aims to enhance public safety by providing timely warnings about potential shark attacks. This would allow individuals in affected areas to take necessary precautions.
The law's impact is limited to the scope of emergency alerts and does not address broader issues related to marine conservation or coastal management.
Expected Effects
If enacted, Lulu's Law would mandate the FCC to include shark attacks as a specific event for which wireless emergency alerts can be issued. This would likely lead to the development of protocols and systems for detecting and reporting shark attacks to the public via wireless alerts.
The immediate change would be the FCC order, followed by the implementation of alert systems in coastal areas. The effectiveness of the law would depend on the accuracy and speed of shark attack detection and reporting mechanisms.
Alerts would only be triggered in areas where there is a credible threat of a shark attack, minimizing unnecessary alarms.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced Public Safety: Provides timely warnings to individuals in coastal areas about potential shark attacks, allowing them to take precautions.
- Reduced Risk of Injury: By alerting people to the presence of sharks, the law could reduce the likelihood of shark-related injuries.
- Improved Awareness: Raises public awareness about the risks associated with swimming or surfing in certain areas.
- Increased Preparedness: Encourages local authorities and communities to develop shark attack response plans.
- Peace of Mind: Offers a sense of security to beachgoers and coastal residents.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for False Alarms: Inaccurate or unverified reports could lead to unnecessary alerts, causing panic and disrupting coastal activities.
- Limited Geographic Scope: The law only addresses shark attacks and does not cover other potential coastal hazards.
- Alert Fatigue: Frequent alerts, even if accurate, could lead to alert fatigue, causing people to ignore or disregard future warnings.
- Implementation Costs: Developing and maintaining the alert system could require significant financial investment.
- Privacy Concerns: The collection and use of data to detect and report shark attacks could raise privacy concerns.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the Constitution, particularly the implied power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare and public safety. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce, which could be interpreted to include activities related to coastal tourism and recreation.
There are no apparent violations of individual rights or liberties, such as those protected by the First Amendment. The law does not infringe on freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, but this bill does not appear to encroach on state authority, as it focuses on regulating interstate communication through the FCC.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).