Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland bill would cap streaming ad loudness to match program audio
Summary
House Bill 985 would bar streaming services from transmitting commercial ads louder than the program audio, extending protections similar to the federal CALM Act to online platforms; consumer and disability advocates urged a favorable report while the sponsor said technical amendments are forthcoming.
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate Marlon Ampre introduced House Bill 985 on Feb. 24, saying the measure would prevent commercial advertisements on video streaming services from playing at higher audio levels than the programming they accompany.
Supporters characterized the bill as a consumer-protection update that modernizes the federal Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act for the streaming era. "The goal of this bill is to limit the volume to the volume that you set when you're watching the actual programming," Ampre said. Jennifer Bevin Dangle of Economic Action Maryland Fund told the committee that streaming was inadvertently left out of earlier federal protections and urged the committee to close that gap.
Accessibility advocates made the case that loud ads are not only disruptive but discriminatory for users who rely on assistive technologies. Robe Saft of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland described how loud commercials can drown out screen-readers and other assistive audio, saying the increased volume "is more than a nuisance — it's discriminatory." Proponents also said most platforms already have technical capability to measure and normalize audio, and that the bill would not restrict content or materially harm revenue models.
Grayson Wiggins of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce said the chamber supports clarifying amendments and cited comparable laws in California and Virginia; the sponsor indicated friendly amendments were expected. No formal vote was taken during the hearing. The bill moves forward with proponents and some industry representatives working on technical language to address implementation details.
The committee is expected to receive the proposed technical amendments before any final vote.

