Federal courts gain power to block foreign piracy sites; service providers get immunity.

What it does

This bill creates a new federal court procedure allowing copyright owners to obtain judicial orders blocking access to foreign websites engaged in copyright piracy. Copyright owners file suit in designated federal courts, prove the site is primarily designed for piracy, and if successful, can obtain orders requiring U.S. internet service providers, domain registrars, and VPN providers to block access to those sites. Service providers are shielded from liability for implementing blocking orders and cannot be sued for secondary copyright infringement based on providing access to foreign piracy sites unless they actively collaborate with the pirate operator.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is establishing a judicial procedure for blocking foreign piracy sites—a copyright enforcement tool. However, the operative mechanism includes broad liability shields for service providers (sections 1610(a)–(b)), which is the secondary but significant feature that distinguishes this from a straightforward enforcement bill.

What the text implies

• Section 1610(b) grants service providers immunity from secondary copyright infringement liability unless they 'actively concert' with the pirate operator—a high bar that may shield providers who knowingly enable piracy through negligence or indifference.
• Section 1611(a) makes the entire proceeding and all court records inadmissible in other copyright cases, preventing copyright owners from using evidence of piracy from blocking proceedings to support infringement claims in other forums.
• Blocking orders may incidentally restrict access to lawful content hosted on the same domain or IP address as piracy content, with limited recourse for third-party operators (section 1606(f) caps compensation at $250,000).
• Section 2(c) preempts all state and local laws on foreign digital copyright piracy, centralizing enforcement in federal courts and eliminating state-level remedies or alternative approaches.
• Service providers have no duty to monitor the Copyright Office registry (section 1608(f)(2)) and are entitled to rely on the accuracy of court-provided information without investigation (section 1604(f)(3)(A)), creating potential for stale or inaccurate blocking orders.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill strengthens copyright enforcement against foreign piracy sites, which protects creators' rights and legitimate U.S. copyright interests. However, blocking orders may incidentally restrict access to lawful content on the same sites, and the broad immunity granted to service providers (section 1610) means users harmed by over-blocking have limited recourse. The bill also preempts state law (section 2(c)), centralizing control in federal courts.

Who stands to gain

• copyright owners and licensees (primary beneficiaries of blocking orders)
• internet service providers (immunity from liability for blocking and secondary infringement)
• domain name registrars and VPN providers (named as service providers subject to orders, but also shi

Named in the bill

Copyright owners, Service providers (ISPs, domain registrars, VPNs), Foreign online locations / piracy sites, U.S. District Courts, Judicial Conference of the United States, Register of Copyrights, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Where it stands

• Sep 14, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 14, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.