Bill strips platform immunity if they moderate content after government pressure
S. 69 — COLLUDE Act · Filed by Eric Schmitt (R-MO) · Introduced Jan 9, 2025 · 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 amends Section 230 of the Communications Act to strip legal immunity from social media platforms and other online services if they moderate content in response to government pressure. It shifts the burden of proof onto platforms to demonstrate they are not publishers, and creates a new exception: platforms lose Section 230 protection when they restrict access to material that 'reasonably appears' to suppress 'legitimate political speech' following a communication from a government entity or a private party acting at the government's behest—unless the government claims law enforcement or national security justification.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to strip Section 230 immunity from platforms that moderate content in response to government pressure, creating new liability exposure. While framed as anti-censorship, it fundamentally restructures platform liability and shifts evidentiary burden, making it a liability-expansion bill with anti-government-pressure intent.
What the text implies
- The 'reasonably appears' standard for suppressing 'legitimate political speech' is subjective and may invite litigation over routine moderation decisions (e.g., removing misinformation, spam, or harassment), forcing platforms to defend moderation choices in court.
- Burden-of-proof shift to platforms means they must affirmatively prove they are not publishers—a high bar that may incentivize platforms to host more content to avoid litigation risk, potentially increasing exposure to illegal material.
- The exception for 'law enforcement purpose' and 'national security purpose' is defined narrowly but still grants government broad discretion; platforms may struggle to distinguish legitimate law enforcement requests from political pressure disguised as such.
- Platforms may respond by reducing moderation of political content entirely, creating a chilling effect on their ability to address disinformation, harassment, or illegal speech tied to political topics.
- Small platforms and startups may lack resources to defend Section 230 claims and may exit the market or impose blanket content restrictions, reducing online speech diversity.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects citizens from government censorship by making platforms liable if they suppress political speech at government request—a genuine democratic safeguard. However, it creates a vague 'reasonably appears' standard that may chill legitimate content moderation (spam, harassment, illegal material), and the burden-of-proof shift may force platforms to host more harmful content or face litigation, ultimately affecting user safety and experience.
Who stands to gain
- litigation firms (increased Section 230 disputes)
- platforms with resources to defend liability (large tech companies)
- political advocacy groups (ability to challenge content moderation)
Named in the bill
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, interactive computer service providers, social media platforms, governmental entities, law enforcement agencies, national security agencies
Where it stands
- Jan 9, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jan 9, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,810,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 36 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Eric Schmitt, the sponsor, reported $274,099 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Entertainment Software Association — $2,810,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (2,713 characters) on Oct 21, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,388 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.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-21.
“Bill strips platform immunity if they moderate content after government pressure” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s69 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.