Congress moves to eliminate platform immunity, exposing internet to litigation surge
H.R. 7045 — PROTECT Act · Filed by Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jan 13, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently shields online platforms and internet service providers from liability for user-generated content and moderation decisions. Repeal would expose platforms to lawsuits for content posted by users, potentially including defamation, trademark infringement, and other claims. The bill also makes conforming amendments across multiple federal statutes (trademark law, copyright law, criminal law, controlled substances law, and others) to remove references to Section 230 and redefine key terms.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to eliminate the legal safe harbor that has protected online platforms from liability for user-generated content since 1996. This is a fundamental restructuring of internet liability law, not a narrow technical fix.
- Amendments to Trademark Act, Title 17 (copyright), Title 18 (criminal law), Controlled Substances Act, Webb-Kenyon Act, Daniel Anderl Judicial Security Act, Title 28, Title 31, and NTIA Organization Act—substantively unrelated to Section 230 repeal itself.
- Removes Section 230 exception language from CSA Section 401(3), potentially affecting how platforms handle drug-related content moderation and liability.
10 unrelated provisions were flagged in total.
What the text implies
- Repeal eliminates the safe harbor for ALL online services—not just social media. Email providers, forums, comment sections, marketplace platforms, and even small community websites could face liability for user posts, potentially forcing many smaller services offline or behind paywalls.
- Criminal liability expansion: removal of Section 230 language from Title 18 (obscenity, child exploitation statutes) may expose platforms to criminal prosecution for user-posted content, not just civil suits, creating chilling effects on moderation and speech.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
plaintiff's bar / litigation firms (increased lawsuits against platforms); legacy media companies (reduced competition from user-generated content platforms); content moderation service providers (increased demand for filtering/monitoring)