TMT Companies Should Prepare for Post-Midterm Congressional Scrutiny – No Matter Who Wins

September 1, 2026

The 2026 midterms could materially reshape the congressional oversight landscape. If Democrats retake the House or Senate, they are expected to set ambitious oversight agendas – backed by the authority to issue subpoenas, convene high-profile hearings, and pursue closed-door testimony. Democrats are already signaling they intend to use their oversight powers to highlight affordability and accountability concerns – and some of their top targets may include companies and stakeholders in the telecommunications, media, and technology (TMT) sectors.  

But a change in control is not a prerequisite for increased industry scrutiny. Next year, TMT companies should expect focused congressional probes into affordability, corporate pricing, consumer harms, and alleged government “jawboning” no matter which party holds committee gavels. This client alert outlines key oversight issues, themes, and risks facing TMT companies and steps they can take now to prepare.

Key Congressional Oversight Risks for TMT Companies

1. AI Infrastructure and Data Centers

Congressional scrutiny of data centers and related artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure is already underway – and it will likely only intensify next Congress.

Democrats have signaled they intend to make oversight of data center development a central pillar of their affordability agenda, with key members in both chambers probing whether data-center projects shift generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs onto residential ratepayers or use confidential utility agreements to keep the public in the dark. These concerns have continued notwithstanding the March 2026 White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, which some Democrats criticized as lacking teeth while seeking to tie the industry’s rapid growth – and the public opposition it has drawn – to the Administration’s policies. That perceived nexus will likely keep data centers atop the Democratic oversight agenda next year.

But multiple Republicans have also homed in on affordability issues presented by data centers, fueled by state and local concerns. The House Energy and Commerce Committee under Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) recently advanced legislation aimed at ensuring large-load customers bear the infrastructure costs tied to data center development. As both parties seek to address energy costs, companies building AI infrastructure should be ready to answer questions about their operations, their impact on costs and communities, and their broader stewardship principles.

2. Algorithmic Pricing and Personal Data

Algorithmic pricing, including so-called “surveillance pricing” and alleged “algorithmic collusion,” sits at the intersection of several politically potent issues, including affordability, privacy, competition, and AI, that could make the practice a marquee oversight priority next year.

Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats are out front in scrutinizing personalized pricing practices. Earlier this year, Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) launched a sweeping inquiry into more than two dozen companies, requesting information about the types of personal data they collect, the disclosures they use, and how their prices are set. Committee Democrats recently expanded this inquiry to the aviation industry, with Ranking Member Pallone vowing to keep investigating “just how widespread this practice is.”

Republicans are not far behind. The House Oversight Committee under Chairman James Comer (R-KY) opened its own inquiry into AI-driven “arbitrage opportunities for companies to weaponize personal data and pad their profit margins.” In August 2026, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, led by Chairman Josh Hawley (R-MO), held a hearing on “the consumer cost of AI surveillance pricing,” where Senator Hawley characterized the practice as “one of the biggest scams in American history.” Following that hearing, Senator Hawley launched an inquiry into AI-powered camera networks, reflecting lawmakers’ increasing scrutiny of the commercial deployment of AI and the implications for consumer privacy and data security.

Consumer-facing retail companies are well advised to evaluate their internal pricing policies and practices – not only for technical compliance, but with an eye toward public perception and collateral risks. Companies involved in the broader pricing ecosystem – such as advertising platforms, data brokers, and analytics companies – should also consider their risks and evaluate potential response strategies.

3. Prediction Markets and Online Betting Platforms

The rise of online prediction markets – and the wide range of event contracts they offer – has thrust sports betting, insider trading, and government transparency into Congress’ sights.

A bipartisan Senate coalition has been probing how professional sports leagues, online betting platforms, integrity monitors, and others detect and deter fraudulent betting activity. Catalyzed by prediction markets entering the sports-wagering space last year, lawmakers have expanded their scrutiny to a variety of consumer-protection issues – age verification processes, advertising tactics, algorithmic promotion of gambling content, internal marketing metrics, and effects on Americans’ health and personal finances.

Alongside these consumer-focused efforts, Congress is also investigating potential insider trading on prediction market platforms. Earlier this year, the House Oversight Committee pressed prediction-market operators on how they verify the identities of foreign account holders, enforce geographic restrictions, and monitor suspicious trading activity. Since then, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced an order filing and settling charges with a White House teleprompter operator who won more than $100,000 on prediction markets using inside information, while multiple Members have introduced bills to ban federal officials from trading on inside information on prediction markets. With anti-corruption expected to anchor Democrats’ oversight agenda next Congress, this space will likely draw even more scrutiny if there is a change in control.

4. Government Influence Over Content and Speech

One of Congress’ most durable oversight priorities in recent years has been scrutinizing government officials’ role in influencing private-sector speech. Although Republicans and Democrats approach the issue through different factual and political lenses, both parties are expected to continue probing circumstances in which government officials are perceived to pressure private companies to suppress certain disfavored content. 

A Democratic majority would likely train its focus on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in connection with licensing decisions, agency investigations, merger reviews, and other regulatory actions – probing whether the agency leveraged its authority to influence editorial or programming choices. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce and House Oversight Committees have already opened inquiries into the FCC’s role in broadcasters’ decisions not to air certain late-night programming criticized by the President, while House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) recently criticized the FCC’s demand that renewal applications for certain broadcast licenses be filed early, which he claimed gives the appearance of federal censorship. Importantly, Democrats would likely target private parties that dealt with the FCC rather than relying exclusively on agency cooperation – meaning broadcasters, station groups, merger counterparties, and other stakeholders may find themselves caught in the middle of an inter-branch dispute.

Republicans, meanwhile, continue investigating alleged government-industry coordination to influence or moderate content. For instance, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) held multiple government “jawboning” hearings last fall, and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) opened investigations into foreign regulators’ influence over U.S. companies’ content-moderation policies.  

Heading into the 2028 Presidential election cycle, both parties will likely continue using congressional oversight tools to amplify their distinct concerns.

5. Political Influence in Regulatory Actions

Notwithstanding the potential for both parties to share certain TMT oversight priorities next Congress, there are also expected areas of departure. For instance, a Democratic majority would likely devote significant oversight resources to federal government actions that appear to benefit perceived political allies of the President. These inquiries tend to focus on whether access, political relationships, donations, settlement commitments, or outside advocacy inappropriately influenced official government action.  

For TMT companies, expect particular attention to the industry’s course of dealing with the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ): investigative and enforcement decisions, license-transfer applications, and merger approvals alleged to reflect political favoritism or an inappropriate corporate concession. Democrats have also scrutinized the outside lobbyists and consultants whom companies have retained in connection with pending transactions.

TMT companies that have engaged with key agencies on politically sensitive matters should take stock of their communications with federal regulators, lobbyists, and consultants in anticipation of probes searching for procedural irregularities.

Key Steps TMT Companies Can Take Now

To get ahead of expected increased oversight activity after the midterms, TMT companies should consider the following:

• Conduct a targeted oversight risk assessment. Identify likely investigative theories and vulnerabilities and start building fact-based response strategies. This may include reviewing key communications with third parties who could be of interest to Congress.
• Evaluate document retention obligations. Confirm where relevant business communications are retained, assess any current or outstanding preservation obligations, and mitigate the risk of process violations that invite further scrutiny.
• Conduct a holistic assessment of relevant policies and practices. Even if a policy satisfies all legal requirements, that may not insulate a company from congressional scrutiny if it is perceived to be unfair or opaque. Evaluate key company policies and practices for both legal and reputational risks and consider any appropriate updates.
• Establish privilege and confidentiality protocols. The privilege landscape in congressional investigations is actively evolving. A recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision appears to undercut Congress’ long-standing position that it is not bound by common-law privileges like the attorney-client privilege. Meanwhile, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel recently articulated an expanded view of Executive privilege – concluding it may reach certain Presidential communications with “private advisers.” Adopt a disciplined privilege review protocol built to account for this dynamic area of the law.
• Build a response team. Congressional investigations often occur alongside regulatory, civil litigation, and media exposure. Stand up a cross-functional team – typically including congressional investigations counsel, communications and government affairs professionals, and compliance officers – with clear lines of responsibility before the first letter arrives.

Bottom Line

For TMT companies, the question next Congress is not whether congressional oversight is coming, but from which direction. It’s not too late to get ahead. Wiley’s Congressional Oversight and Investigations team can help you map your exposure and prepare before Congress comes calling.