How does the REPORT Act change platform reporting deadlines and content scope compared with previous law?

1. What changed for deadlines: preservation extended from 90 days to 1 year

Under prior law platforms were required to preserve the contents of a CyberTipline report and related comingled materials for at least 90 days; the REPORT Act raises that minimum statutory preservation period to one year and explicitly permits providers to voluntarily retain reports longer for child‑safety purposes ^{[1] [4] [3] [2]}.

2. What changed for content scope: trafficking and coercion added to reporting obligations

The Act broadens the universe of “apparent violations” that electronic communication and remote computing providers must report to include apparent child sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. §1591 and coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), meaning platforms must now forward tip reports that point to those specific federal offenses in addition to existing CSAM categories ^{[2] [1]}.

3. What did not change: the knowledge standard and detection mandate

Crucially, the REPORT Act does not alter the statutory threshold that triggers reporting — providers are still required to report “as soon as reasonably possible after obtaining actual knowledge” of an apparent violation — and the law does not impose a new affirmative detection mandate on platforms to scan user content for the newly enumerated offenses ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Liability carve‑outs and survivor protections: who gains shielded status

The law narrows legal risk for certain actors: it bars civil claims or criminal charges against minors (or persons acting on their behalf) arising from reports to NCMEC that include a depiction of the reporting minor, and it extends protections for vendors who contract with NCMEC when they comply with statutory requirements, reducing disincentives for survivors and intermediaries to submit imagery or assist investigations ^{[3] [4] [6]}.

5. Enforcement, penalties, and the operational consequence for platforms

REPORT raises provider accountability by increasing penalties for knowing and willful failures to report and by creating longer retention obligations that investigators can rely on, which will likely require platforms to adjust internal workflows, retention policies, and legal risk assessments; industry guidance and child‑safety groups note the change will prompt technical and procedural tweaks but emphasize the statute stops short of forcing automatic detection tools ^{[5] [6] [2]}.

6. Limits, tradeoffs, and open questions in practice

The legislation strengthens investigators’ access to preserved content and broadens reportable offenses on paper, yet practical tradeoffs remain unresolved in the public record: how platforms will balance the longer retention mandate against privacy and data‑minimization norms, how resource‑constrained law enforcement will use year‑long preservation windows, and how the unchanged actual‑knowledge trigger will be applied to ambiguous signals of trafficking or coercion — all areas where the available sources describe intent but do not provide empirical outcomes ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

7. Bottom line: more time and a wider scope, but the same trigger

Compared with pre‑REPORT law the headline legal shifts are straightforward — preservation moves from 90 days to one year and platforms must report an expanded list of apparent offenses including child sex trafficking and coercion/enticement — but the statutory core (actual‑knowledge reporting) remains intact, leaving implementation, detection practices, and privacy tradeoffs to be worked out by platforms, vendors, law enforcement, and civil‑society actors ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}.