Focused foreign-influence audit · ranks 1–4 plus ISD

Four European Organizations in U.S. State and National Internet Lawmaking, plus ISD

Claim-level sourcing, four state engagement atlases, an ISD activity register, and a vertical organization-to-bill coordination graph

Focused edition generated 2026-07-26; underlying evidence current through 2026-07-25, with the reproduced 5Rights atlas current through 2026-07-18

5organization profiles
51graph bills · state + national
58organization–bill edges
5shared legislative vehicles

Focused findings

The four highest-priority organizations, plus ISD

The original ranking places 5Rights, CCDH, Reset, and AVPA first through fourth on the combined severity, government-nexus, and advocacy index. ISD is added here as a supplemental transatlantic-entity profile with its own federal, state, funding, and government-interaction records.[2][1]

1

5Rights

The broadest verified state-law portfolio and the clearest documented foreign-principal lobbying chain.[5][6]

42mapped engagements81priority score
2

CCDH

The strongest speech-control portfolio in the screen, paired with a former UK technology minister on the board and a modest but quantifiable U.S. lobbying record.[1][17]

5mapped engagements71priority score
3

Reset

The largest disclosed U.S. lobbying operation in the ranked set, with state advocacy carried by a U.S. affiliate inside a transnational network.[1][39]

6mapped engagements69priority score
4

AVPA

The most severe access-and-identity portfolio in the screen and the clearest commercial beneficiary of the mandates it promotes.[1][74]

7mapped engagements66priority score
S

ISD

ISD is a legally separate but operationally connected transatlantic network. The reviewed federal LDA filings are under ISD-US; ISD UK accounts document reciprocal inter-entity funding and shared U.S. election-response work.[76][79][78]

1state activity—supplemental

Profiles copied and fully footnoted

Identity, funding, affiliation, lobbying, and state activity

Each factual sentence links through an inline number to the filing, official record, organizational disclosure, or reproducible evidence artifact supporting it.

1

Original rank 1 · United Kingdom[1]

5Rights Foundation

UK registered charity 1178581 and company limited by guarantee 11271356[3][4]

81of 100[1]

Finding: The broadest verified state-law portfolio and the clearest documented foreign-principal lobbying chain.[1][5][6]

Foreign/U.S. structure: UK legal entity; U.S. state campaign led from the foundation and through U.S. coalitions and a FARA-registered consultant.[3][7][6]

Foreign-principal/control evidence: The DOJ FARA exhibit for Capitol Connection identifies 5Rights Foundation as the foreign principal for a $50,000 retainer and California AB 2273 coalition and lobbying work; this is direct foreign-principal evidence for that engagement.[6] The reviewed funding records identify private philanthropic support, while the public record does not show a funder agreement directing 5Rights' U.S. legislative strategy.[4][8][9]

Government funding: The 2025 Charity Commission return reports £1.770 million in grants and donations and £1.807 million total income.[4] The return and bounded GrantNav review identify private philanthropic support; the reviewed award search produced zero government grant or contract records.[4][8][9]

Government affiliation: Founder and honorary president Baroness Beeban Kidron is a sitting Crossbench peer.[10][11] Trustee Elizabeth Denham is a former UK Information Commissioner; chair Sir Peter Wanless previously held senior public-sector roles.[10]

Federal lobbying: Capitol Connection disclosed a $10,000 monthly retainer for May–September 2022—$50,000—and work on AB 2273 involving coalition-building, direct lobbying, letters, and amendments.[6]

State record: Bill support is documented in state analyses and public campaign pages.[12][7][5] The bounded registry review produced zero additional named state lobbying-expenditure records under 5Rights.[9]

Law severity47/50
Government nexus9/25
Advocacy/lobbying25/25
Composite81/100

Speech/content/system control 9 · Identity or data collection 10 · Access or account restrictions 8 · AI/design operational mandates 8 · Penalties or private litigation 6 · Breadth and enactment 6 · Documented public money 0 · Government, regulator, or parliamentary nexus 9 · Drafting or direct support 8 · Disclosed paid lobbying 10 · Breadth, testimony, or litigation 7[1][2]

FundingPrivate/philanthropic grants in reviewed records[4][8]
AffiliationStrong personnel and parliamentary nexus[10][11]
LobbyingFARA filing with amount[6]
2

Original rank 2 · United Kingdom / United States[1]

Center for Countering Digital Hate

UK company 11633127 and affiliated U.S. 501(c)(3), EIN 86-2006080[13][14]

71of 100[1]

Finding: The strongest speech-control portfolio in the screen, paired with a former UK technology minister on the board and a modest but quantifiable U.S. lobbying record.[1][15][16][17]

Foreign/U.S. structure: Transatlantic NGO brand; the California support record names CCDH without separating the UK and U.S. entities.[13][14][18][12][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

Foreign-principal/control evidence: CCDH's U.K. company and U.S. 501(c)(3) are legally distinct affiliates; the U.S. affiliate reported $4.249 million of 2024 revenue, almost all as contributions, while the reviewed U.K. government answer reported no DSIT or Ofcom funding.[13][14][30] The public record establishes cross-entity branding and leadership ties, but does not identify a U.K. parent appointment right, grant condition, or instruction controlling the U.S. affiliate's lobbying; the separate FARA request sought investigation rather than documenting a registration.[13][15][31][9]

Government funding: A 2025 UK parliamentary answer records zero DSIT or Ofcom funding to CCDH in the period addressed.[30] The U.S. affiliate reported $4.249 million in 2024 revenue, almost all as contributions.[14]

Government affiliation: Former MP and former technology minister Damian Collins is a current director of the UK company.[15][32][16] Companies House also records former directors Morgan McSweeney and Kirsty McNeill.[15]

Federal lobbying: Deduplicated Senate records show $50,000 paid to Lot Sixteen in 2021–2022 and $5,698.31 of in-house lobbying expense in 2026 Q1, for $55,698.31 total disclosed expense.[33][34][35][17]

State record: Official California records list CCDH as a supporter of five measures and quote its arguments on SB 771.[18][12][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

Law severity45/50
Government nexus8/25
Advocacy/lobbying18/25
Composite71/100

Speech/content/system control 10 · Identity or data collection 6 · Access or account restrictions 7 · AI/design operational mandates 8 · Penalties or private litigation 7 · Breadth and enactment 7 · Documented public money 0 · Government, regulator, or parliamentary nexus 8 · Drafting or direct support 8 · Disclosed paid lobbying 6 · Breadth, testimony, or litigation 4[1][2]

FundingOfficial answer: zero DSIT/Ofcom funding in addressed period[30]
AffiliationFormer minister and MP on board[15][16]
LobbyingLDA filings with amount[17]
3

Original rank 3 · United Kingdom / Germany / United States / Australia[1]

Reset network / Reset Tech Action

Network containing Reset Tech UK Ltd, Reset Tech Action gGmbH, and U.S. 501(c)(4) Reset Tech Action[36][37][38]

69of 100[1]

Finding: The largest disclosed U.S. lobbying operation in the ranked set, with state advocacy carried by a U.S. affiliate inside a transnational network.[1][36][39][40][41]

Foreign/U.S. structure: The network describes its country entities collectively as one organization; verified U.S. state lobbying was conducted by its U.S. arm.[36][37][38]

Foreign-principal/control evidence: Reset's own structure page describes a global network governed by a board, funded by foundations across Europe and North America, and operating through U.S., U.K., German, and Australian entities.[42][36] Reset Tech UK Limited's two directors are Ben Scott and Poppy Wood; Companies House records Scott with at least 75% of voting rights and the right to appoint or remove directors, and Wood with more than 25% but not more than 50% of voting rights.[43][44] Ben Scott is also the U.S. 501(c)(4)'s president/director and authorized its Maryland lobbying registration; the 2024 Form 990 reports three voting governing-body members and two independent members, and Schedule R identifies the related D.C. c3 rather than a foreign entity.[45][46] The overlap strengthens a foreign-control inquiry, but the reviewed public records do not show the U.K. entity appointing the U.S. board, approving U.S. lobbying, or conditioning funding on U.S. political activity.[44][45][42][9]

Government funding: Reset Tech UK reported £1.571 million of 2024 turnover—revenue—with £1.523 million of entity-wide administrative expenses.[47] A follow-up procurement search identified Reset Tech GmbH in a five-member consortium awarded a €4.861 million, 36-month European Commission DSA-monitoring contract; the notice reports the consortium total and leaves Reset's share unitemized.[48]

Government affiliation: Reset chief executive Ben Scott previously served as a policy adviser at the U.S. State Department.[49] The score treats this as a limited historical personnel nexus.[1]

Federal lobbying: Deduplicated direct-client LDA reports total $1,222,500 from 2024 through 2026 Q2.[39] The calculation excludes $115,500 in subcontractor reports already contained within direct-client totals.[39]

State record: Maryland reports $100,000 in 2024 employer expenditures and identifies six mapped state-bill engagements, including HB 567 and SB 541 in activity report A033321.[40][50][51][52] Nebraska records verify $30,300 through Q3 2025: $23,120.29 in Q2 compensation plus a $300 reimbursement, and $6,879.71 in Q3 compensation.[53][41] The Nebraska governor credited more than a year of work with Reset on enacted LB 504.[54]

Law severity42/50
Government nexus2/25
Advocacy/lobbying25/25
Composite69/100

Speech/content/system control 7 · Identity or data collection 9 · Access or account restrictions 8 · AI/design operational mandates 8 · Penalties or private litigation 5 · Breadth and enactment 5 · Documented public money 0 · Government, regulator, or parliamentary nexus 2 · Drafting or direct support 8 · Disclosed paid lobbying 10 · Breadth, testimony, or litigation 7[1][2]

FundingEU procurement consortium; UK turnover is entity-wide[48][47]
AffiliationHistorical public-service nexus[49]
LobbyingLargest disclosed federal spend[39]
4

Original rank 4 · United Kingdom[1]

Age Verification Providers Association

UK company limited by guarantee 11961982; not-for-profit trade association of commercial age-assurance vendors[55][56]

66of 100[1]

Finding: The most severe access-and-identity portfolio in the screen and the clearest commercial beneficiary of the mandates it promotes.[1][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

Foreign/U.S. structure: UK trade body representing suppliers with a direct commercial stake in age-verification mandates.[55][56][72]

Foreign-principal/control evidence: AVPA is a U.K.-incorporated, member-controlled trade body; Companies House lists Iain Corby and Alastair Graham as its directors, and AVPA identifies an executive committee drawn from member companies plus a U.S.-based technology strategist managing its U.S. work.[55][73] Its documented public-funding link is participation in the €1.4 million European Commission-funded euConsent pilot; AVPA's individual allocation and any terms directing U.S. advocacy remain unitemized.[74]

Government funding: AVPA says it played a leading role in the €1.4 million European Commission-funded euConsent pilot.[74] Public materials leave AVPA's individual allocation unitemized.[74] Membership fees for 2026 run from £3,500 to £11,000.[72]

Government affiliation: The documented government nexus is participation in the European Commission-funded euConsent project.[74]

Federal lobbying: The Senate LDA API returned zero filings under the screened organization name.[75]

State record: AVPA left an extensive public record through committee testimony, written submissions, and a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Those records disclose advocacy activity; the federal LDA search reports zero paid-lobbying filings under AVPA's name.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][75]

Law severity46/50
Government nexus5/25
Advocacy/lobbying15/25
Composite66/100

Speech/content/system control 6 · Identity or data collection 10 · Access or account restrictions 8 · AI/design operational mandates 8 · Penalties or private litigation 7 · Breadth and enactment 7 · Documented public money 5 · Government, regulator, or parliamentary nexus 0 · Drafting or direct support 8 · Disclosed paid lobbying 0 · Breadth, testimony, or litigation 7[1][2]

FundingEU-funded project participation[74]
AffiliationCommission-funded project relationship[74]
LobbyingFederal LDA search returned zero filings[75]
S

Supplemental profile · UK / U.S.[1]

Institute for Strategic Dialogue

ISD UK is a UK charity and company; ISD-US is a separate Washington, D.C. 501(c)(3) nonprofit formed in 2009.[76][77][78]

—supplemental

Finding: ISD is a legally separate but operationally connected transatlantic network. The reviewed federal LDA filings are under ISD-US; ISD UK accounts document reciprocal inter-entity funding and shared U.S. election-response work.[76][78][79]

Foreign/U.S. structure: ISD UK and ISD-US are legally separate entities. ISD's strategic-plan document describes historical board overlap that allowed collective decision-making, while the current governance page lists separate UK and U.S. boards.[76][80] The 2024 UK accounts describe the network as separate entities that share a mission and state that ISD UK makes its own strategic, programmatic, and operating decisions.[78]

Governance-separation chronology and FARA relevance: The public language changed in stages. ISD UK's 2021 accounts described the U.S. and German organizations as sister organizations and planned a major expansion of U.S. work through ISD-US; the 2022 accounts emphasized effective co-working and improved inter-entity working across all geographies, without an autonomy disclaimer.[81][82] A strategic-plan document apparently created in 2022 is the earliest located text that says the UK and U.S. entities are legally separate, but it also says a majority of board members historically sat on both boards so decisions could be taken collectively. The document's displayed rosters do not make that claimed majority overlap independently clear, so the extent of overlap cannot be confirmed from that document alone.[80] The 2023 accounts are the first located UK filing to use the later legal-accounting formulation: ISD entities are separate legal entities, and ISD UK makes its own decisions on key operating policies. They also record that the UK CEO moved to ISD-US in September 2023, after which UK management functions were performed jointly by a COO and managing director.[83] The website adopted the separation language later than the accounts. Archived ISD-US and ISD UK pages from September 2023 and April 2024 presented the U.S. work through ISD's global operation and used footers identifying only the England-registered ISD company. The page metadata records a 1 November 2024 modification; the first located post-change captures, 18 December 2024, explicitly identified ISD-US as a D.C. 501(c)(3) formed in 2009 and listed ISD UK, ISD-US, Germany, France, and Jordan as distinct entities.[84][85][86][87][88][89] The 2024 accounts then expanded the formulation to say ISD UK makes all its own decisions on key strategic, programmatic, and operating policies; they also report a governance audit and updated governance structures. The timing and increasingly categorical wording are consistent with compliance-aware or defensive positioning as ISD-US's U.S. government and lobbying profile grew, but none of the reviewed governance, accounts, or website materials mentions FARA or says the wording was adopted for FARA purposes.[78][79][90] There was a real formal change: separate U.S. incorporation, separate accounts, separately listed boards, a U.S.-based management transition, and a 2024 governance review. There was not a clean operational separation: the network still describes consistency across entities, the strategic plan records collective decision-making through historic board overlap, and the UK accounts document grants, reciprocal funding, and shared work with ISD-US. Under FARA, legal separateness alone does not resolve whether a U.S. entity acts at the order, request, direction, or control of a foreign principal; the public record therefore supports a compliance rationale as a hypothesis, not a proved motive or dispositive agency conclusion.[76][80][78][90][91]

Foreign-principal/control evidence: ISD UK is a foreign-organized charity with a substantial government and multilateral funding stream; its 2024 accounts report £2,957,283 in that category and record a £363,710 grant to ISD-US, alongside other inter-entity funding flows.[78][92][93] ISD's historical governance record shows a transition from collective network decision-making and integrated inter-entity working toward more explicit legal and policy autonomy language. That transition is relevant to control analysis, but it does not by itself establish that ISD UK directed ISD-US's U.S. advocacy.[80][82][83][78] The combination of foreign government funding, inter-entity grants, and historic board overlap is the strongest control indicator in this profile set; the autonomy language and absence of a located FARA registration leave the direction-of-U.S.-advocacy question unresolved.[78][80][90]

Government funding: ISD UK reported £2,957,283 of government and multilateral income in 2024, equal to 48.27% of total income; its funders page names the U.S. State Department, DHS, and DOJ among public funders.[78][93] The 2024 accounts record £363,710 paid from ISD UK to ISD-US and £1,134,755 of income from other ISD entities; a separate related-party note reports £1,427,646 of net funding received from ISD-US. These are distinct accounting lines, not additive totals.[92][78]

Government interaction: Before ISD-US's formation on August 19, 2009, the reviewed public record did not locate a federal or state lobbying filing or a named official U.S. government interaction for ISD UK; the earliest concrete U.S. government records located are from 2015 onward.[76][79][90] In 2015, ISD co-hosted a Washington summit with CSIS connected to a State Department International Visitor Leadership Program and ISD CEO Sasha Havlicek testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee as the head of London-based ISD.[94][95] Later records show ISD co-hosting a 2021 State Department Summit for Democracy event, an ISD witness at a 2022 House disinformation hearing, and ISD-US's 2026 Q2 State Department counterterrorism briefing.[96][97][98]

Federal lobbying: The Senate LDA search returned eight ISD-US filings from 2025 Q1 through 2026 Q2. Four 2025 quarterly reports disclose no activity; the 2026 reports identify congressional communications on national security, Iran, violence, threats to public officials, children's online safety, and a State Department briefing.[79][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][98] The reviewed DOJ FARA search located no registration under Institute for Strategic Dialogue, ISD, or ISD-US.[90]

State record: ISD joined a 2024 coalition letter urging California's governor to sign SB 1047; the bill was later vetoed.[106][107]

ScoringISD is added as a supplemental entity profile; it is not inserted into the original four-organization ranking.
FundingGovernment and multilateral income; reciprocal UK–U.S. affiliate funding[78][93][92]
AffiliationSeparate entities with historical board overlap and current operational ties[76][80][77]
LobbyingEight Senate LDA filings; no located FARA registration[79][90]

U.S. recipients and lobbyists

Funding transactions identified in the reviewed records

The table lists payments or grants from the five organizations in scope to U.S. nonprofits or lobbying firms. Reset's direct-client LDA total is deduplicated at $1,222,500; the pass-through filing is shown separately for completeness and excluded from that total.[39][82][83][92]

OrganizationU.S. recipientAmount and periodTypeRecord basis
5Rights Foundation Capconn, LLC d/b/a Capitol Connection
Lobbying firm · United States		 USD 50,000
May–September 2022		 Lobbying retainer
Paid by organization		 FARA Exhibit B: $10,000 monthly retainer and AB 2273 coalition/direct-lobbying work.[6]
Center for Countering Digital Hate Lot Sixteen LLC
Government-relations and communications firm · United States		 USD 50,000
2021 Q3–2022 Q1		 Lobbying income reported by registrant
Paid by organization		 Senate LDA filings: $20,000 in 2021 Q3, $20,000 in 2021 Q4, and $10,000 in 2022 Q1; amendment duplicates are counted once.[33][34][35]
Reset Tech Action Corbin Strategies LLC
Lobbying firm · United States		 USD 320,000
2024 Q1–Q4; 2025 Q3–Q4; 2026 Q1–Q2		 Federal lobbying
Paid by organization		 Deduplicated direct-client Senate LDA income: 2024 Q1–Q4 $50,000 each; 2025 Q3 $20,000, Q4 $40,000; 2026 Q1–Q2 $30,000 each. KOSA is named in the 2024 and 2025–26 filings.[39]
Reset Tech Action Center Road Solutions
Lobbying firm · United States		 USD 170,000
2024 Q1–Q4		 Federal lobbying
Paid by organization		 Deduplicated direct-client Senate LDA income: 2024 Q1 $50,000; Q2–Q4 $40,000 each. KOSA and KOSPA appear in the 2024 issue descriptions.[39]
Reset Tech Action EFB Advocacy LLC
Lobbying firm · United States		 USD 502,500
2025 Q1–Q4; 2026 Q1–Q2		 Federal lobbying
Paid by organization		 Deduplicated direct-client Senate LDA income: 2025 Q1 $45,000, Q2 $75,000, Q3 $90,000, Q4 $97,500; 2026 Q1–Q2 $97,500 each. Issue descriptions cover online safety/security, device-level security, whistleblower protection, reconciliation, and telecommunications.[39]
Reset Tech Action Epplin Strategic Planning
Lobbying firm · United States		 USD 230,000
2024 Q1–Q4; 2025 Q1–Q4		 Federal lobbying
Paid by organization		 Deduplicated direct-client Senate LDA income: 2024 Q1 $20,000; Q2–Q4 $30,000 each; 2025 Q1–Q4 $30,000 each. KOSA is named in 2024 and later filings cover online harms, telecommunications, whistleblower, reconciliation, and continuing-resolution issues.[39]
Reset Tech Action EFB Advocacy LLC, on behalf of Reset Tech Action / Epplin Strategic Planning
Lobbying-firm pass-through · United States		 USD 115,500
2024 Q1–Q4		 Subcontractor filing
Pass-through reported by registrant		 Pass-through filing: 2024 Q1 $16,500; Q2–Q4 $33,000 each. It is contained in the direct-client totals above; shown for completeness and excluded from the $1,222,500 deduplicated Reset total.[39]
Institute for Strategic Dialogue Institute for Strategic Dialogue USA
501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliate · United States		 GBP 87,724
2022		 Grant
Paid by organization		 UK Charity Commission grant table.[82]
Institute for Strategic Dialogue Institute for Strategic Dialogue-US
501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliate · United States		 GBP 310,188
2023		 Grant
Paid by organization		 UK Charity Commission grant table.[83]
Institute for Strategic Dialogue Institute for Strategic Dialogue-US
501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliate · United States		 GBP 363,710
2024		 Grant
Paid by organization		 UK Charity Commission grant table.[92]

The three ISD rows are UK-to-U.S.-affiliate grants in pounds sterling. The Reset pass-through row is a registrant filing already contained in the direct-client totals. AVPA's reviewed LDA and organizational records supplied federal policy references; the U.S.-recipient transaction rows are the 5Rights, CCDH, Reset, and ISD records listed above.

FARA check: The reviewed DOJ FARA database contains no registration located under CCDH, Center for Countering Digital Hate, or Lot Sixteen. The public CCDH-related FARA document located was an October 2024 request asking DOJ to investigate whether CCDH's U.S. and UK entities must register; it is a request for investigation rather than a FARA registration filing.[90][31]

ISD supplemental activity register

ISD federal and state lobbying, filings, and government interactions

The federal filing record is under ISD-US. ISD UK is included separately where the public record identifies the UK entity or the London-based ISD network. Formal LDA filings are separated from testimony, government events, and coalition advocacy.[76][79][90]

EntityPeriodRecord typeLobbying activity / reported statusFiling
ISD-US 2025 Q1 LDA registration Registration covering online safety, public safety, national security, human rights, and democracy in the digital age; lobbyists Sasha Mahler Havlicek, Charles Dixon Osburn, and Isabelle Frances-Wright. Open filing[99]
ISD-US 2025 Q1 LDA quarterly report No lobbying activity reported. Open filing[100]
ISD-US 2025 Q2 LDA quarterly report No lobbying activity reported. Open filing[101]
ISD-US 2025 Q3 LDA quarterly report No lobbying activity reported. Open filing[102]
ISD-US 2025 Q4 LDA quarterly report No lobbying activity reported. Open filing[103]
ISD-US 2026 Q1 LDA quarterly report Meetings, briefings, and written communications with Congress and staff regarding U.S. national-security policy, including Iran; lobbyists Havlicek and Osburn. Open filing[104]
ISD-US 2026 Q1 amendment LDA amendment Amended issue description covering congressional meetings, briefings, and written communications on Iran-related national-security and geopolitical developments. Open filing[105]
ISD-US 2026 Q2 LDA quarterly report Briefing for the State Department Counterterrorism Bureau on ISIS digital ecosystems and Iranian-backed hybrid operations; written communications with Senate representatives and staff on nihilistic violence, threats to public officials, and children's online safety. Open filing[98]

ISD UK federal search: The reviewed Senate LDA and DOJ FARA searches located no filing under ISD UK, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD. The eight federal filings above are ISD-US records.[79][90]

EntityPeriodState recordActivityRecord
ISD UK / ISD network 2024-09-03 State coalition advocacy letter Joined Public Citizen, the Incarcerated Nation Network, and Accountable Tech in a letter urging California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign SB 1047. Open record[106][107]

State search result: The reviewed official state record located one direct ISD activity: the California SB 1047 coalition letter. The bill record supplies the legislative status; the CAIP page supplies ISD's participation in the letter.[106][107]

ISD UK interactions with the U.S. government

ISD UK was founded in 2008 and ISD-US was incorporated on August 19, 2009. The pre-formation review located no public federal or state lobbying filing or named official U.S. government interaction for ISD UK between those dates; the first concrete records located begin in 2015. From 2015 onward, the record shows an ISD/CSIS summit connected to a State Department visitor program, House testimony by ISD's London-based CEO, ISD's role in the Strong Cities Network, a State Department Summit for Democracy event co-hosted with ISD, and later ISD congressional testimony. The 2026 Q2 LDA report records ISD-US's briefing for the State Department Counterterrorism Bureau.[76][94][95][190][96][97][98]

Entity / networkPeriodInteractionWhat the official record showsSource
ISD UK / ISD network2015State Department IVLP / Washington summitISD co-hosted the Women and Extremism Summit with CSIS; the State Department record describes subsequent meetings by participants with U.S. government officials and other U.S. institutions.[94]
ISD UK / ISD network2015-07-29House Foreign Affairs testimonySasha Havlicek testified as CEO of London-based ISD on women under ISIS rule.[95]
ISD / U.S. government2015 onwardStrong Cities NetworkISD identifies itself as the network's launch organization; State Department records describe the network as launched and sustained by the Department.[190]
ISD / U.S. government2021-12-02Summit for Democracy co-hostingThe State Department records an ISD-co-hosted event on researcher access to data.[96]
ISD2022-09-15House disinformation hearingThe House hearing record lists Jiore Craig, ISD's Head of Digital Integrity, as a witness.[97]

One combined state atlas

Where the four organizations engaged

Use the four checkboxes to display any combination of 5Rights, CCDH, Reset, and AVPA engagements. The map keeps national legislative vehicles in the bipartite graph below.[191][5][1]

Bipartite network · 3 organizations · 51 bills

Coordination through shared legislative vehicles

The graph combines documented state-bill edges with named national legislative vehicles. The combined state map above remains state-only. The 5Rights, CCDH, and Reset graph universe contains 51 bills and 58 organization–bill relationships.[5][1][50][39] The lower row preserves 5 shared vehicles and groups organization-only bills into 38 5Rights-only bills, 4 CCDH-only bills, and 4 Reset-only bills. Possible overlaps are labeled “Possible.”

Vertical bipartite graph of 3 organizations and 8 bill or grouped-bill nodes 5Rights, CCDH, and Reset appear in the top row. One bottom row contains 5 shared bills followed by 38 Other Bills for 5Rights, 4 Other Bills for CCDH, 4 Other Bills for Reset. ORGANIZATIONS BILLS AND GROUPS 5Rights 42 engagements 5Rights Foundation — 42 bill engagements CCDH 5 engagements Center for Countering Digital Hate — 5 bill engagements Reset 6 engagements Reset network / Reset Tech Action — 6 bill engagements CA AB 2273 California Age-Appro… CA AB 2273 — California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act; 5Rights, CCDH, Reset MD HB 603 Maryland Kids Code MD HB 603 — Maryland Kids Code; 5Rights, Reset MD SB 571 Maryland Kids Code MD SB 571 — Maryland Kids Code; 5Rights, Reset NE LB 504 Age-Appropriate Onli… NE LB 504 — Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act; 5Rights, Reset US S.1409 / H.R.7891 Kids Online Safety A… US S.1409 / H.R.7891 — Kids Online Safety Act; 5Rights, Reset, CCDH 38 Other Bills 5Rights only 38 bills supported only by 5Rights 4 Other Bills CCDH only 4 bills supported only by CCDH 4 Other Bills Reset only 4 bills supported only by Reset
5RightsCCDHReset Shared bill node Organization-only bill group

5 shared legislative vehicles

BillConnected organizationsEvidence
CA AB 2273
California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act		 5Rights, CCDH, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights sponsorship · CCDH: Registered support · Reset: Registered support		 [108][109][6][110][18][12][19]
MD HB 603
Maryland Kids Code		 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights support · Reset: Coalition support; registered lobbying principal		 [126][127][128][40]
MD SB 571
Maryland Kids Code		 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights support · Reset: Coalition support; registered lobbying principal		 [129][127][128][40]
NE LB 504
Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act		 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion · Reset: Policy development and registered state lobbying		 [142][143][144][183][54][41]
US S.1409 / H.R.7891
Kids Online Safety Act		 5Rights, Reset, CCDH
5Rights: Possible · Reset: Direct · CCDH: Possible		 [185][186][39][189]
Complete graph ledger: all 51 bills represented above
BillTitleOrganizationsEvidence
CA AB 2273 California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights, CCDH, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights sponsorship · CCDH: Registered support · Reset: Registered support		 [108][109][6][110][18][12][19]
MD HB 603 Maryland Kids Code 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights support · Reset: Coalition support; registered lobbying principal		 [126][127][128][40]
MD SB 571 Maryland Kids Code 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Direct 5Rights support · Reset: Coalition support; registered lobbying principal		 [129][127][128][40]
NE LB 504 Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act 5Rights, Reset
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion · Reset: Policy development and registered state lobbying		 [142][143][144][183][54][41]
US S.1409 / H.R.7891 Kids Online Safety Act 5Rights, Reset, CCDH
5Rights: Possible · Reset: Direct · CCDH: Possible		 [185][186][39][189]
CA AB 56 Social Media Warning Labels 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [111][112][113]
CA AB 2246 Age-Appropriate Design Code Updates 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [114][112][113]
CA AB 2655 Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act CCDH
CCDH: Registered support		 [25][26][27]
CA AB 2839 Deceptive content about elections CCDH
CCDH: Registered support		 [22][23][24]
CA AB 3211 California Digital Content Provenance Standards CCDH
CCDH: Registered support		 [20][21]
CA SB 771 Social-media platform civil-rights liability CCDH
CCDH: Named supporter; quoted argument		 [28][29]
GA SB 495 Georgia Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [115][116][117]
HI SB 2309 Hawaii Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Direct state-campaign support		 [182][122]
IL SB 50 Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [118][119][113]
IL SB 51 Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [120][119][113]
IL SB 1126 Age-Appropriate Design Code proposal 5Rights
5Rights: Direct state-campaign support		 [121][122]
KS SB 499 Kansas Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [123][124][125]
MD HB 567 Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 Reset
Reset: Registered legislative lobbying		 [51][50][184]
MD SB 541 Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 Reset
Reset: Registered legislative lobbying and funded policy research		 [52][50][184]
MI HB 5357 Michigan Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [130][131][113]
MI SB 757 SAFE for Kids Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [135][131][113]
MI SB 758 Michigan Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [132][133][131]
MI SB 759 Michigan Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [134][133][131]
MI SB 760 LEAD for Kids Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [136][131][113]
MN HF 2 Health and Children and Families Finance Act — social-media warning label 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [137][138][113]
MN HF 2257 Minnesota Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Direct 5Rights support and testimony		 [139][140][141]
NH HB 1650 New Hampshire Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [145][146][113]
NJ A 4014 Social Media Research Center 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [152][149][113]
NJ A 4015 New Jersey Kids Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [147][148][149]
NJ S 3412 Social Media Mental Health Warnings 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [151][149][113]
NJ S 3413 New Jersey Kids Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [150][148]
NM SB 68 New Mexico Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Explicit 5Rights backing		 [153][154]
NM SB 319 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Campaign-lineage attribution		 [155][154]
NV AB 320 Nevada Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Explicit 5Rights support		 [156][157]
NY A 5346 Warning Labels for Addictive Social Media Platforms Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [160][159][113]
NY A 6549 Stop Online Predators Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [162][159][113]
NY A 10379 Protecting Kids from Unsafe AI Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [164][159][113]
NY S 4505 Warning Labels for Addictive Social Media Platforms Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [158][159][113]
NY S 4609 Stop Online Predators Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [161][159][113]
NY S 9051 Protecting Kids from Unsafe AI Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [163][159][113]
SC H 3402 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Explicit 5Rights support; source-numbering conflict		 [169][170]
SC H 3431 Social Media Regulation Act 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [165][166][167]
SC S 268 South Carolina Age-Appropriate Design Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [168][166]
TX HB 499 Social Media Warning Labels 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [171][172][113]
US S.1748 Kids Online Safety Act Reset
Reset: Direct		 [188][39]
US S.2073 Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act Reset
Reset: Direct		 [187][39]
VT H 121 Vermont Data Privacy Act / Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [173][174]
VT S 69 Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [175][176][113]
WI AB 960 Social Media Mental Health Warnings 5Rights
5Rights: Coalition endorsement		 [181][179][113]
WI AB 1161 Wisconsin Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [177][178][179]
WI SB 978 Wisconsin Kids Code 5Rights
5Rights: Bill-specific 5Rights promotion		 [180][178][179]

Method and boundaries

How this focused version was assembled

Profile transfer

The four ranked profiles preserve the identity, funding, affiliation, lobbying, state-record, score, and flag findings from ranks 1–4 of the original report; ISD is added as a supplemental profile with separate entity, funding, filing, and government-interaction evidence.[2][1][76] Each factual sentence now carries inline numbered footnotes linked to the underlying filing, official record, organizational disclosure, or reproducible search artifact.

Engagement maps

The combined map draws the dedicated 5Rights 42-bill dataset together with qualifying CCDH, Reset, and AVPA records from the original restrictive-law screen.[191][5][192][1] The four checkboxes filter the displayed organizations. Map colors collapse outcomes into Passed (including budget enactments), Failed (including substitutions), Partial (all other mapped outcomes), and No engagement.[193][191]

Coordination definition

A graph edge records a cited engagement by an organization on a numbered state or national bill. A shared node records two or more organizations connected to the same legislative vehicle; “Possible” marks an issue-level overlap rather than a paid filing. The state-by-state maps intentionally exclude the national records. Contractual direction, shared financing, and joint planning remain separate relationship questions requiring their own evidence.

Coverage limits

The 5Rights atlas is current through 18 July 2026; the CCDH and AVPA maps inherit the original report's 25 July 2026 cutoff. The Reset map incorporates the Maryland activity-report follow-up completed on 26 July 2026.[5][1][50] California's support lists use the CCDH brand without allocating each act between its UK and U.S. entities.[13][14][18][12][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] The euConsent source states the consortium's €1.4 million budget and AVPA's leading role while leaving AVPA's allocation unitemized.[74]

Companion data

Download the focused evidence package

Focused datasetProfiles, maps, nodes, edges, and footnote numbers Profile-screen actions36 organization–action records U.S. funding transactions10 identified payment or grant rows Coordination edges58 organization–bill links Footnote ledger193 cited source records ISD filing/activity register9 federal and state records

Claim-level source ledger

Footnotes

  1. 1. European NGOs in U.S. State Internet Lawmaking: structured data — Investigation Harness (2026-07-25). Canonical organization profiles, scores, actions, evidence links, screen decisions, and source records for the original report. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  2. 2. European NGOs in U.S. State Internet Lawmaking: original report — Investigation Harness (2026-07-25). Preserved original nine-organization report and scoring methodology. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  3. 3. 5Rights Foundation Ltd, company 11271356 — UK Companies House. Confirms the active UK company and filing history. ↩ ↩
  4. 4. 5Rights Foundation charity 1178581: accounts and annual returns — Charity Commission for England and Wales. Reports £1,806,824 total income and £1,770,230 grants and donations for the year ending 31 May 2025. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  5. 5. 5Rights U.S. bill-map dataset — Investigation Harness (2026-07-18). Forty-two bill records across eighteen states, including support tier, status, official record, and engagement evidence. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  6. 6. Capitol Connection FARA exhibit for 5Rights Foundation — U.S. Department of Justice FARA Unit (2024-06-27). Retainer and scope; May–September 2022. Discloses a $10,000 monthly retainer and work concerning California AB 2273, including coalition, lobbying, letters, and amendments. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  7. 7. 5Rights: United States of America campaign — 5Rights Foundation. Describes 5Rights' U.S. Kids Code campaign and its collaboration with state coalitions. ↩ ↩
  8. 8. GrantNav grants to 5Rights Foundation — 360Giving GrantNav. Shows six disclosed private-foundation grants totaling £1,770,500 across their reported grant periods. ↩ ↩ ↩
  9. 9. European NGO screen: reproducible search log — Investigation Harness (2026-07-25). Records the bounded registry, funding, lobbying, and organizational searches used in the original investigation. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  10. 10. 5Rights: about, trustees, and leadership — 5Rights Foundation. Identifies founder and honorary president Baroness Kidron, trustee Elizabeth Denham, and chair Sir Peter Wanless. ↩ ↩ ↩
  11. 11. Baroness Kidron: registered interests — UK Parliament. Confirms Kidron's current House of Lords position and declared relationship with 5Rights. ↩ ↩
  12. 12. California AB 2273 Assembly analysis: registered support and bill mechanics — California Assembly (2022). pp. 19–20; local text lines 942–989. Identifies 5Rights as sponsor and lists CCDH, Fair Vote, Je Suis Là, Real Facebook Oversight Board, Reset Tech, and Tiramisu among registered supporters. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  13. 13. Centre for Countering Digital Hate Ltd, company 11633127 — UK Companies House. Confirms the active UK company and its filings. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  14. 14. Center for Countering Digital Hate Inc., EIN 86-2006080 — ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer / IRS. Reports 2024 revenue of $4,248,552, expenses of $3,431,870, and contributions of $4,199,947 for the U.S. affiliate. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  15. 15. Centre for Countering Digital Hate Ltd: officers — UK Companies House. Shows Damian Collins as a current director and records former directors including Morgan McSweeney and Kirsty McNeill. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  16. 16. Damian Collins: ministerial career — UK Government. Records Collins's service as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy in 2022. ↩ ↩ ↩
  17. 17. Senate LDA filings: Center for Countering Digital Hate — U.S. Senate Office of Public Records. Deduplicated filings show $50,000 paid to Lot Sixteen in 2021–2022 and $5,698.31 in-house expense in 2026 Q1. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  18. 18. CA AB 2273: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA AB 2273. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  19. 19. NetChoice v. Bonta, Ninth Circuit opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2026-03-12). Current appellate treatment of the preliminary injunction against central AB 2273 provisions. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  20. 20. CA AB 3211: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA AB 3211. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  21. 21. California AB 3211 Senate Judiciary analysis — California Senate Judiciary Committee. Support list at local text lines 958–970. Lists CCDH in support and describes provenance, watermarking, labeling, and penalty provisions. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  22. 22. CA AB 2839: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA AB 2839. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  23. 23. California AB 2839 legislative analyses — California Legislature. Support list at local text lines 1192–1200. Lists CCDH in support and describes election-content removal, injunction, and damages provisions. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  24. 24. Kohls v. Bonta: summary-judgment and permanent-injunction order for AB 2839 — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California filing, via Justia (2025-08-29). Grants summary judgment and permanently enjoins enforcement of AB 2839 against the named plaintiffs. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  25. 25. CA AB 2655: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA AB 2655. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  26. 26. AB 2655 analyses — California Legislative Information. Evidence of Center for Countering Digital Hate's activity concerning CA AB 2655. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  27. 27. X Corp. v. Bonta: permanent-injunction order concerning AB 2655 — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California filing, via Justia (2025-08-20). Permanently enjoins AB 2655 and holds its platform-removal and labeling regime preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  28. 28. CA SB 771: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA SB 771. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  29. 29. California SB 771 Senate Judiciary analysis — California Senate Judiciary Committee. Arguments and support list at local text lines 706–779. Quotes CCDH's support argument and lists CCDH as a supporter; details algorithmic civil-rights liability and penalties. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  30. 30. UK written answer 26614: funding to CCDH — UK Parliament (2025). DSIT and Ofcom stated that they had not provided funding to CCDH in the period addressed. ↩ ↩ ↩
  31. 31. America First Legal FARA request concerning CCDH — America First Legal (2024-10-31). Requests that DOJ investigate whether CCDH's U.S. and UK entities must register; it is a request for investigation, not a CCDH or Lot Sixteen FARA registration. ↩ ↩
  32. 32. Damian Collins: parliamentary career — UK Parliament. Records Collins's House of Commons service from 2010 until 30 May 2024. ↩
  33. 33. CCDH–Lot Sixteen: 2021 Q3 lobbying report — U.S. Senate LDA (2021-10-19). $20,000 quarterly income reported by Lot Sixteen for CCDH. ↩ ↩
  34. 34. CCDH–Lot Sixteen: 2021 Q4 lobbying report — U.S. Senate LDA (2022-01-19). $20,000 quarterly income reported by Lot Sixteen for CCDH. ↩ ↩
  35. 35. CCDH–Lot Sixteen: 2022 Q1 termination report — U.S. Senate LDA (2022-04-20). $10,000 quarterly income reported by Lot Sixteen for CCDH. ↩ ↩
  36. 36. Reset: legal entities and terms — Reset. Describes the Reset network's U.S., UK, German, and Australian legal entities as one organization. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  37. 37. Reset Tech UK Ltd, company 14982650 — UK Companies House. Confirms the active UK company and filings. ↩ ↩
  38. 38. Reset Tech Action, EIN 92-2957561 — ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer / IRS. Reports 2024 revenue of $11,657,770, expenses of $10,994,470, and net assets of $1,630,090 for the U.S. 501(c)(4). ↩ ↩
  39. 39. Senate LDA filings: Reset Tech Action — U.S. Senate Office of Public Records. Deduplicated direct-client reports total $1,222,500 from 2024 through 2026 Q2; subcontractor reports already included in direct totals were excluded. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  40. 40. Maryland registered lobbying employer expenditures, 2024 — Maryland State Ethics Commission. Reset Tech Action row; local text line 1381. Reports $100,000 in 2024 employer lobbying expenditures. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  41. 41. Reset Tech Action Nebraska 2025 Q3 principal expense report — Nebraska Legislature. Reports $6,879.71 in lobbyist compensation for the quarter. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  42. 42. Reset Tech: structure, board, and philanthropic network — Reset Tech (2026-07-26). States that Reset works across the UK, Europe, Canada, and the United States; was created with support from Sandler Foundation and Luminate; is funded by foundations and philanthropies across Europe and North America; and is governed by a board overseeing global operations. ↩ ↩
  43. 43. Reset Tech UK Limited: active directors — UK Companies House (2026-07-26). Lists Dale Benjamin Scott and Poppy Wood as the two active directors of Reset Tech UK Limited; Companies House records Scott as American and Wood as British, both resident in the United Kingdom. ↩
  44. 44. Reset Tech UK Limited: persons with significant control — UK Companies House (2026-07-26). Records Ben Scott with 75% or more of voting rights and the right to appoint or remove directors, and Poppy Wood with more than 25% but not more than 50% of voting rights. ↩ ↩
  45. 45. Reset Tech Action 2024 Form 990 and Schedule R — IRS / ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (2024-12-31). Reports three voting governing-body members and two independent members; lists U.S. officers/directors and shared employees/reimbursements with the related D.C. c3 Reset Tech; Schedule R identifies no foreign related organization or grant/capital contribution from the related organization. ↩ ↩
  46. 46. Reset Tech Action Maryland lobbying registration — Maryland State Ethics Commission (2023-11-16). Names Ben Scott as the Reset Tech Action representative who authorized the employer's Maryland lobbying registration. ↩
  47. 47. Reset Tech UK Ltd accounts for year ended 31 December 2024 — UK Companies House. PDF pp. 4, 8, 13–14. Reports £1,571,393 turnover, £1,522,618 administrative expenses, five employees, directors, and related-party balance; turnover source is unitemized. ↩ ↩
  48. 48. DSA technical assistance procurement notice 786418-2024 — European Union Tenders Electronic Daily (2024-12-20). Records a €4,861,089, 36-month DG CNECT contract awarded to a five-member consortium that includes Reset Tech GmbH; the notice states the consortium-wide value. ↩ ↩
  49. 49. Ben Scott biography — Aspen Digital. Identifies Scott as Reset's CEO and records his prior service as Policy Advisor for Innovation at the U.S. Department of State. ↩ ↩
  50. 50. Reset Tech Action lobbying activity report A033321 — Maryland State Ethics Commission (2024-11-25). Names HB 567, HB 603, SB 541, and SB 571 as specific bills on which Reset Tech Action's registered lobbyist engaged. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  51. 51. HB 567 — Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 — Maryland General Assembly (2024-05-09). Official status, title, history, and Chapter 454 enactment record. ↩ ↩ ↩
  52. 52. SB 541 — Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 — Maryland General Assembly (2024-05-09). Official status, title, history, and Chapter 455 enactment record. ↩ ↩ ↩
  53. 53. Nebraska lobbying expenses by principal — Nebraska Legislature (2025). Lists Reset Tech Action's 2025 Q2 compensation and reimbursement alongside its quarterly principal reports. ↩
  54. 54. Nebraska governor: LB 504 to protect kids online passes — Office of the Nebraska Governor (2025). States that LB 504 was the product of more than a year of work with Reset Tech and records enactment. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  55. 55. The AVPA Ltd, company 11961982 — UK Companies House. Confirms the active UK company limited by guarantee. ↩ ↩ ↩
  56. 56. Age Verification Providers Association — AVPA. Describes AVPA as a not-for-profit global trade body for age-assurance suppliers. ↩ ↩ ↩
  57. 57. KS SB 394: official record — KS legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for KS SB 394. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  58. 58. Kansas SB 394 testimony and supplemental materials — Kansas Legislature. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning KS SB 394. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  59. 59. CA AB 3080: official record — CA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CA AB 3080. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  60. 60. AVPA gives evidence to California Assembly committee — AVPA. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning CA AB 3080. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  61. 61. AVPA withdraws support for AB 3080 — AVPA. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning CA AB 3080. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  62. 62. CO SB 25-201: official record — CO legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for CO SB 25-201. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  63. 63. Colorado SB 25-201 testimony materials — Colorado General Assembly. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning CO SB 25-201. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  64. 64. WA HB 1834: official record — WA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for WA HB 1834. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  65. 65. Washington HB 1834 House bill report — Washington State Legislature. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning WA HB 1834. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  66. 66. WA HB 2112: official record — WA legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for WA HB 2112. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  67. 67. Washington HB 2112 committee hearing video — TVW / Washington Legislature. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning WA HB 2112. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  68. 68. OH HB 84: official record — OH legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for OH HB 84. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  69. 69. Ohio HB 84 committee record — Ohio Legislature. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning OH HB 84. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  70. 70. TX HB 1181: official record — TX legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for TX HB 1181. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  71. 71. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton docket, No. 23-1122 — U.S. Supreme Court. Evidence of Age Verification Providers Association's activity concerning TX HB 1181. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  72. 72. Joining the AVPA — AVPA. Lists commercial membership categories and annual fees from £3,500 to £11,000 for 2026. ↩ ↩
  73. 73. AVPA leadership and team — Age Verification Providers Association (2026-07-26). Lists the AVPA chair and executive committee drawn from member companies, Iain Corby as executive director, and Mark Roberts as the U.S.-based technology strategist managing AVPA's U.S. work. ↩
  74. 74. euConsent nonprofit created to continue the European Commission-funded project — euConsent. Describes the €1.4 million European Commission-funded pilot and AVPA's leading role; the amount allocated to AVPA is not itemized. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  75. 75. Senate LDA search: Age Verification Providers Association — U.S. Senate Office of Public Records. Returned zero federal LDA filings under the screened name. ↩ ↩ ↩
  76. 76. ISD governance — Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Identifies trustees and senior advisers with public-service backgrounds. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  77. 77. ISD global team and network entities — Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2026-07-26). Identifies ISD-US executive leadership and describes the network's distinct legal entities and locations. ↩ ↩
  78. 78. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 2024 accounts — Charity Commission for England and Wales. Government & Multilateral income by program. Reports £2,957,283 in Government & Multilateral income across Research, Policy, and Action, equal to 48.27% of total income. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  79. 79. Senate LDA API search — Institute for Strategic Dialogue — U.S. Senate LDA (2026-07-26). Returns eight ISD-US filings from 2025 Q1 through 2026 Q2, including the registration and quarterly reports listed in the report. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  80. 80. ISD strategic-plan document: UK and U.S. entity relationship — Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2022). Describes the UK and U.S. entities as legally separate while stating that historical board overlap allowed collective decision-making. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  81. 81. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 2021 accounts — UK Charity Commission (2021-12-31). Describes ISD's U.S. and German sister organizations, expansion through those entities, and plans to expand U.S. work through ISD-US; it does not use the later own-decisions formulation. ↩
  82. 82. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 2022 accounts — inter-entity working — UK Charity Commission (2022-12-31). Describes expansion of ISD-US and ISD Germany, effective co-working across all ISD entities, and improved inter-entity working; it does not use the later own-decisions formulation. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  83. 83. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 2023 accounts — first autonomy wording — UK Charity Commission (2023-12-31). First located UK accounts to call the ISD entities separate legal entities and say ISD UK makes its own decisions on key operating policies; records the CEO's move to ISD-US in September 2023. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  84. 84. ISD-US page archived 27 September 2023 — Internet Archive (2023-09-27). Describes the US work as part of ISD's global operation and the footer identifies ISD as an England-registered company; it does not identify a separate ISD-US legal entity. ↩
  85. 85. ISD-US page archived 27 April 2024 — Internet Archive (2024-04-27). Pre-November 2024 capture whose footer still identifies only the England-registered ISD company, before the explicit separate-entity footer and US incorporation paragraph appeared. ↩
  86. 86. ISD-US page archived 18 December 2024 — Internet Archive (2024-12-18). First located post-November 1, 2024 capture with the explicit ISD-US District of Columbia 501(c)(3) formation paragraph and a footer listing ISD UK, ISD-US, Germany, France, and Jordan as distinct entities. ↩
  87. 87. ISD UK about page archived 27 September 2023 — Internet Archive (2023-09-27). The archived ISD UK about page presents the organization through its global network and UK company identity; its footer does not list ISD-US as a distinct legal entity. ↩
  88. 88. ISD UK about page archived 27 April 2024 — Internet Archive (2024-04-27). Pre-November 2024 capture whose footer still lacks the later distinct-entity ISD-US wording. ↩
  89. 89. ISD UK about page archived 18 December 2024 — Internet Archive (2024-12-18). First located post-November 1, 2024 ISD UK about-page capture whose footer identifies ISD UK and ISD-US as distinct legal entities and gives the U.S. corporation's D.C. status and tax ID. ↩
  90. 90. DOJ FARA electronic filing system — ISD name search — U.S. Department of Justice (2026-07-26). Exact-name searches for Institute for Strategic Dialogue, ISD, and ISD-US produced no located FARA registration in the reviewed active or terminated records. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  91. 91. DOJ FARA index and statutory text — U.S. Department of Justice (2026-07-27). Provides the FARA statutory framework for analyzing foreign-principal relationships and agency/control; legal separateness is not the sole test. ↩
  92. 92. Institute for Strategic Dialogue 2024 accounts — UK Charity Commission (2024-12-31). Grant table records a £363,710 grant from ISD UK to Institute for Strategic Dialogue-US in 2024. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  93. 93. ISD partnerships and funders — Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Names U.S., UK, EU, German, Canadian, and other government and multilateral funders. ↩ ↩ ↩
  94. 94. Women Preventing Violent Extremism — International Visitor Leadership Program — U.S. Department of State (2015-06-08). Records a Washington summit co-hosted by ISD and CSIS and subsequent meetings with U.S. government officials and other U.S. institutions. ↩ ↩ ↩
  95. 95. House Foreign Affairs hearing: Women and Countering Violent Extremism — U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs (2015-07-29). Sasha Havlicek testified as CEO of London-based ISD on women under ISIS rule. ↩ ↩ ↩
  96. 96. Host-sponsored events: The Summit for Democracy — U.S. Department of State (2021-12-02). Records a State Department event co-hosted with ISD on increasing researcher access to data. ↩ ↩ ↩
  97. 97. A Growing Threat: Foreign and Domestic Sources of Disinformation — U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform (2022-09-15). House hearing record lists Jiore Craig, Head of Digital Integrity at ISD, as a witness from Washington, D.C. ↩ ↩ ↩
  98. 98. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2026 Q2 — U.S. Senate LDA (2026-07-20). Reports a State Department Counterterrorism Bureau briefing and written communications with Senate representatives on violence, public-official threats, and children's online safety. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  99. 99. ISD-US Senate LDA registration — 2025 Q1 — U.S. Senate LDA (2025-01-22). Registers ISD-US for online safety, public safety, national security, human rights, and democracy in the digital age. ↩ ↩
  100. 100. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2025 Q1 — U.S. Senate LDA (2025-04-21). Reports no lobbying activity. ↩ ↩
  101. 101. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2025 Q2 — U.S. Senate LDA (2025-07-21). Reports no lobbying activity. ↩ ↩
  102. 102. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2025 Q3 — U.S. Senate LDA (2025-10-20). Reports no lobbying activity. ↩ ↩
  103. 103. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2025 Q4 — U.S. Senate LDA (2026-01-20). Reports no lobbying activity. ↩ ↩
  104. 104. ISD-US Senate LDA quarterly report — 2026 Q1 — U.S. Senate LDA (2026-04-20). Reports congressional meetings, briefings, and written communications on national-security policy including Iran. ↩ ↩
  105. 105. ISD-US Senate LDA amendment — 2026 Q1 — U.S. Senate LDA (2026-04-20). Amends the Q1 issue description concerning Iran-related national-security and geopolitical developments. ↩ ↩
  106. 106. Governor Newsom must support SB 1047 — Center for AI Policy (2024). Lists the Institute for Strategic Dialogue among signatories urging the governor to sign SB 1047. ↩ ↩ ↩
  107. 107. SB 1047 — Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act — California Legislature (2024). Official bill record for the California measure named in ISD's coalition advocacy letter. ↩ ↩ ↩
  108. 108. CA AB 2273 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for CA AB 2273. ↩ ↩ ↩
  109. 109. CA AB 2273 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for CA AB 2273. ↩ ↩ ↩
  110. 110. CA AB 2273 additional support evidence — efile.fara.gov (2026-07-18). Support attribution for CA AB 2273. ↩ ↩ ↩
  111. 111. CA AB 56 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for CA AB 56. ↩ ↩
  112. 112. CA AB 56 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for CA AB 56. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  113. 113. Kids Code Coalition homepage and supporting organizations — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Establishes 5Rights' national supporting-organization relationship and bill-attribution rule. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  114. 114. CA AB 2246 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for CA AB 2246. ↩ ↩
  115. 115. GA SB 495 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for GA SB 495. ↩ ↩
  116. 116. GA SB 495 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for GA SB 495. ↩ ↩
  117. 117. GA SB 495 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for GA SB 495. ↩ ↩
  118. 118. IL SB 50 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for IL SB 50. ↩ ↩
  119. 119. IL SB 50 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for IL SB 50. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  120. 120. IL SB 51 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for IL SB 51. ↩ ↩
  121. 121. IL SB 1126 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for IL SB 1126. ↩ ↩
  122. 122. IL SB 1126 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for IL SB 1126. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  123. 123. KS SB 499 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for KS SB 499. ↩ ↩
  124. 124. KS SB 499 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for KS SB 499. ↩ ↩
  125. 125. KS SB 499 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for KS SB 499. ↩ ↩
  126. 126. MD HB 603 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MD HB 603. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  127. 127. MD HB 603 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for MD HB 603. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  128. 128. MD HB 603 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for MD HB 603. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  129. 129. MD SB 571 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MD SB 571. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  130. 130. MI HB 5357 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MI HB 5357. ↩ ↩
  131. 131. MI HB 5357 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for MI HB 5357. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  132. 132. MI SB 758 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MI SB 758. ↩ ↩
  133. 133. MI SB 758 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for MI SB 758. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  134. 134. MI SB 759 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MI SB 759. ↩ ↩
  135. 135. MI SB 757 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MI SB 757. ↩ ↩
  136. 136. MI SB 760 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MI SB 760. ↩ ↩
  137. 137. MN HF 2 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MN HF 2. ↩ ↩
  138. 138. MN HF 2 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for MN HF 2. ↩ ↩
  139. 139. MN HF 2257 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for MN HF 2257. ↩ ↩
  140. 140. MN HF 2257 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for MN HF 2257. ↩ ↩
  141. 141. MN HF 2257 additional support evidence — www.house.mn.gov (2026-07-18). Support attribution for MN HF 2257. ↩ ↩
  142. 142. NE LB 504 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NE LB 504. ↩ ↩ ↩
  143. 143. NE LB 504 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NE LB 504. ↩ ↩ ↩
  144. 144. NE LB 504 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for NE LB 504. ↩ ↩ ↩
  145. 145. NH HB 1650 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NH HB 1650. ↩ ↩
  146. 146. NH HB 1650 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NH HB 1650. ↩ ↩
  147. 147. NJ A 4015 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NJ A 4015. ↩ ↩
  148. 148. NJ A 4015 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NJ A 4015. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  149. 149. NJ A 4015 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for NJ A 4015. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  150. 150. NJ S 3413 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NJ S 3413. ↩ ↩
  151. 151. NJ S 3412 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NJ S 3412. ↩ ↩
  152. 152. NJ A 4014 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NJ A 4014. ↩ ↩
  153. 153. NM SB 68 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NM SB 68. ↩ ↩
  154. 154. NM SB 68 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NM SB 68. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  155. 155. NM SB 319 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NM SB 319. ↩ ↩
  156. 156. NV AB 320 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NV AB 320. ↩ ↩
  157. 157. NV AB 320 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NV AB 320. ↩ ↩
  158. 158. NY S 4505 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY S 4505. ↩ ↩
  159. 159. NY S 4505 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for NY S 4505. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  160. 160. NY A 5346 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY A 5346. ↩ ↩
  161. 161. NY S 4609 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY S 4609. ↩ ↩
  162. 162. NY A 6549 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY A 6549. ↩ ↩
  163. 163. NY S 9051 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY S 9051. ↩ ↩
  164. 164. NY A 10379 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for NY A 10379. ↩ ↩
  165. 165. SC H 3431 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for SC H 3431. ↩ ↩
  166. 166. SC H 3431 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for SC H 3431. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  167. 167. SC H 3431 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for SC H 3431. ↩ ↩
  168. 168. SC S 268 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for SC S 268. ↩ ↩
  169. 169. SC H 3402 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for SC H 3402. ↩ ↩
  170. 170. SC H 3402 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for SC H 3402. ↩ ↩
  171. 171. TX HB 499 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for TX HB 499. ↩ ↩
  172. 172. TX HB 499 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for TX HB 499. ↩ ↩
  173. 173. VT H 121 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for VT H 121. ↩ ↩
  174. 174. VT H 121 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for VT H 121. ↩ ↩
  175. 175. VT S 69 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for VT S 69. ↩ ↩
  176. 176. VT S 69 support passage — Kids Code Coalition (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for VT S 69. ↩ ↩
  177. 177. WI AB 1161 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for WI AB 1161. ↩ ↩
  178. 178. WI AB 1161 support passage — 5Rights Foundation (2026-07-18). Quoted support passage for WI AB 1161. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  179. 179. WI AB 1161 additional support evidence — kidscodecoalition.org (2026-07-18). Support attribution for WI AB 1161. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  180. 180. WI SB 978 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for WI SB 978. ↩ ↩
  181. 181. WI AB 960 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for WI AB 960. ↩ ↩
  182. 182. HI SB 2309 official bill record — State legislature (2026-07-18). Authors, actions, votes, and status for HI SB 2309. ↩ ↩
  183. 183. NE LB 504: official record — NE legislature or court. Official text, history, status, or proceeding for NE LB 504. ↩ ↩ ↩
  184. 184. EPIC testimony in support of SB 541 — Maryland General Assembly (2024-02-13). Supporting testimony incorporates an EPIC report whose work was funded by Reset Tech Action. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
  185. 185. Kids Online Safety Act — S.1409 / H.R.7891 — Congress.gov (2023-2024). Official federal bill record for the 2023–24 KOSA vehicle named in Reset's Senate lobbying filings and CCDH's federal-proposals discussion. ↩ ↩
  186. 186. 5Rights: U.S. elections and federal online-safety legislation — 5Rights Foundation (2024-11-07). 5Rights calls for continued federal action and identifies the Kids Online Safety Act as a federal priority; this is labeled a possible issue-level graph overlap. ↩ ↩
  187. 187. Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act — S.2073 — Congress.gov (2023-2024). Official federal bill record for the KOSPA vehicle named in Reset's Senate lobbying filings. ↩
  188. 188. Kids Online Safety Act — S.1748 — Congress.gov (2025-2026). Official federal bill record for the 2025–26 KOSA vehicle named in Reset's Senate lobbying filings. ↩
  189. 189. CCDH submission discussing U.S. federal online-safety proposals — Center for Countering Digital Hate (2024-10-04). CCDH submission names KOSA and COPPA 2.0 among U.S. federal proposals; this supports a possible issue-level overlap, not a paid federal filing. ↩ ↩
  190. 190. From San Diego to San Francisco: The State Department's impact on California — U.S. Department of State (2019). Describes the Strong Cities Network as launched and sustained by the State Department; ISD identifies itself as the network's launch organization. ↩ ↩
  191. 191. 5Rights and American State AI Laws: original interactive map — Investigation Harness (2026-07-18). Original interactive engagement atlas reproduced in this focused report. ↩ ↩ ↩
  192. 192. 5Rights bill-map source ledger — Investigation Harness (2026-07-18). Primary-source ledger underlying the broader 5Rights engagement map. ↩
  193. 193. U.S. states GeoJSON used by the original 5Rights map — Folium example-data repository. State boundary geometry used only to draw the engagement maps. ↩