Congress moves to eliminate platform immunity, exposing internet to litigation surge
H.R. 7045 — PROTECT Act · Filed by Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) · 2 cosponsors · 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.
- Amends 1913 alcohol-shipping law to reference Section 223 definition; unclear substantive purpose beyond conforming reference removal.
- Amendments to Title 18 sections 1462, 1465, 2257, 2421A remove Section 230 safe harbor language from obscenity and child exploitation statutes, expanding potential criminal liability for platforms.
- Amends Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act (2022) to remove Section 230 reference; substantive purpose unclear from text.
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 conforming amendments across 10+ statutes suggest the bill's drafters anticipated broad downstream effects but did not fully articulate them in the main text—a sign of incomplete legislative vetting.
- Platforms may respond by implementing aggressive automated content filtering and pre-moderation, reducing user speech and increasing false-positive censorship of lawful content.
- International platforms may exit the U.S. market or geo-block U.S. users, fragmenting the internet and reducing consumer choice.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Repeal of Section 230 would likely increase litigation costs for online platforms, which may be passed to users through higher subscription fees, reduced free services, or stricter content moderation that chills speech. Citizens would face a more fragmented, expensive, and potentially more censorious internet. While some may benefit from easier lawsuits against platforms, the broad public would likely bear costs through reduced access, higher prices, and reduced platform viability for smaller se
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)
Named in the bill
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, interactive computer service providers, online platforms, Trademark Act of 1946, Title 17 (Copyright), Title 18 (Criminal Code), Controlled Substances Act, Webb-Kenyon Act, Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022, Title 28 (Judiciary), Title 31 (Money and Finance), National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Republicans.
- Jan 13, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jan 13, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (3,850 characters) on Aug 17, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress moves to eliminate platform immunity, exposing internet to litigation surge” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr7045 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.