Courts can now order ISPs to block foreign websites—with immunity for collateral damage.

What it does

This bill creates a new legal mechanism allowing copyright owners to petition federal courts to designate foreign websites as 'piracy sites' and then order U.S. broadband providers and major DNS services to block access to them. Copyright holders benefit by gaining a faster, court-backed tool to restrict access to infringing content hosted abroad; broadband providers and DNS operators bear the compliance cost and legal liability risk, though they receive immunity for good-faith blocking efforts.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a judicial designation-and-blocking system designed to empower copyright holders against foreign piracy sites. It is not deregulation or a carve-out; it is a new private right of action backed by court orders and service-provider compliance obligations. The complexity and immunity provisions create enforcement leverage but also collateral risk to legitimate internet access.

What the text implies

• Service providers receive broad immunity even when blocking non-infringing sites or interfering with legitimate access, shifting liability risk to users and legitimate operators who cannot easily challenge the blocking.
• The 'reasonable measures' standard is undefined and non-prescriptive, creating uncertainty about what compliance looks like and potential for inconsistent or over-broad blocking across providers.
• Ex parte (one-sided) designation orders are permitted if the court determines requirements are met, allowing copyright holders to obtain blocking orders without the foreign operator's knowledge or opportunity to contest until after the order issues.
• The bill does not require proof of actual infringement before designation—only that material 'likely violates' copyright and the owner 'likely' will suffer irreparable harm, lowering the evidentiary bar compared to traditional infringement litigation.
• Collateral blocking of legitimate content is possible if a piracy site operates from the same IP address or domain infrastructure as lawful sites, and the immunity provisions shield providers from liability for such over-blocking.

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

Who it affects

Citizens gain potential reduction in access to infringing content and stronger copyright enforcement, but face collateral blocking of legitimate sites if service providers over-comply, reduced internet access transparency (blocking notices are optional), and the risk that overbroad designations chill legitimate speech or access to lawful content. The immunity provisions shield service providers from liability even when they block non-infringing sites, shifting risk to users and legitimate operat

Who stands to gain

• copyright holders and entertainment companies
• music labels and film studios
• software publishers

Named in the bill

Copyright Office, U.S. District Courts, broadband providers, DNS service providers, copyright owners, foreign online operators

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Sep 24, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 24, 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.