Consumer Group Targets ADS-B Billing Restriction in ALERT Act

Section 105 would restrict the use of ADS-B data to identify aircraft for revenue collection without an owner or operator’s consent.

Consumer Group Targets ADS-B Billing Restriction in ALERT Act
[Credit: Mircea Moira | Shutterstock]
Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • Congressional negotiators are debating Section 105 of the House-passed ALERT Act, which restricts public and private entities from using ADS-B data for revenue generation or civil investigations without consent.
  • Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) is campaigning to remove Section 105, arguing it's a "tax break for the jet-set" that could hinder state and local governments' ability to collect aircraft-related taxes and fees.
  • The FAA Administrator and AOPA oppose using ADS-B data for fee collection, stating its intent is for safety and situational awareness, with several states already having adopted similar restrictions.
See a mistake? Contact us.

Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) on Thursday called for congressional negotiators to remove an ADS-B provision from the House-passed ALERT Act as lawmakers work to reconcile the measure with the Senate’s ROTOR Act. Section 105 would restrict public and private entities from using ADS-B information to generate revenue from aircraft owners and operators unless they consent.

The House passed the ALERT Act 396-10 in April following the January 2025 midair collision near Reagan Washington National Airport. The Senate legislation does not include a comparable restriction on the use of ADS-B data.

Dispute Over Section 105

The section in question would also generally prevent federal, state, local and tribal officials from beginning civil investigations based exclusively on ADS-B data.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenue losses resulting from the restrictions would be small. CASE argues the provision could interfere with the ability of state and local governments to collect aircraft-related taxes and fees.

CASE also released a YouGov poll it commissioned of 1,000 likely 2026 midterm voters. On an initial description of the provision, 36% supported it, 25% opposed it and 39% were unsure. After respondents were presented arguments for and against the measure, opposition rose to 49%, while 28% supported it.

“This is a tax break for the jet-set, paid for by average working Americans who will never set foot on a private aircraft,” CASE Chairman Gerard Scimeca said in the organization’s announcement.

FAA, AOPA Oppose ADS-B Billing

During a May 19 Senate Aviation Subcommittee hearing, Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., asked FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford whether ADS-B had been intended to serve as a “fee collecting, tax collecting device.” Sheehy is a co-sponsor of separate legislation that would restrict the use of ADS-B for fee collection, and AOPA has supported incorporating those protections into the ALERT Act.

“No, sir,” Bedford replied. “It was intended to be a safety and situational awareness tool.” Bedford also told the committee that the FAA had advised airport operators that the agency “frown[s] on the concept of using ADS-B information for revenue collection at airports.”

Section 105 would not prohibit airports from charging landing fees; it would restrict the use of ADS-B transmissions to identify aircraft for collection purposes without consent. Montana, Florida and Louisiana have already adopted their own restrictions on ADS-B-based billing for at least some GA aircraft.

Matt Ryan

Matt is AVweb's lead editor. His eyes have been turned to the sky for as long as he can remember. Now a fixed-wing pilot, instructor and aviation writer, Matt also leads and teaches a high school aviation program in the Dallas area. Beyond his lifelong obsession with aviation, Matt loves to travel and has lived in Greece, Czechia and Germany for studies and for work.
Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE