PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 29, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10364 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10364 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10364 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10364 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create a federal court process for copyright owners to seek orders requiring covered internet access, domain-name lookup and virtual private network providers to block U.S. access to qualifying foreign piracy sites. It would also give site operators ways to challenge declarations or blocking orders and allow operators or users of unrelated services to seek corrections when blocking harms them.
A copyright owner may bring an action in a district court of the United States, subject to section 1607, for a declaration that an accused online service is a foreign piracy site.
The term service provider includes providers of broadband internet access services, providers of domain name resolution services, and virtual private networks
requires each named service provider to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent users or subscribers from using its systems or networks to access the foreign piracy site from the United States
the operator of the accused online service may move the court to rescind a declaration issued under section 1602(b) or an order issued under section 1604(d).
An operator or user of a third party online service may file a motion with the court that issued an order under section 1604(b), requesting that the order be modified to cure a defect in the operation of the order.
The proposed American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 would add a chapter on foreign piracy site blocking to federal copyright law. Eligible copyright owners would include owners and exclusive licensees of rights described in existing section 106.
This Act may be cited as the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026.
Title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 16 Foreign Piracy Site Blocking
The term copyright owner means an owner or exclusive licensee of an exclusive right described in section 106.
The proposed process would cover publicly accessible websites or identifiable online locations operated outside the United States, including operators whose location cannot reasonably be established as within the country. Merely being accused would not establish that a service is a foreign piracy site; that designation would require a federal court declaration.
The term foreign online location means a website or uniquely identifiable online location that is— (A) accessible to the public; (B) operated by an individual or entity located outside the United States (or the location of which cannot be determined to be within the United States following a reasonable investigation); and (C) identifiable by 1 or more Internet Protocol addresses, fully qualified domains, or other similar online identifiers.
The term foreign piracy site means a foreign online location that a district court of the United States has determined to be a foreign piracy site in a declaration under section 1602(b).
Covered providers would transmit or connect users' chosen communications without changing their content. The definition expressly includes broadband, domain-name lookup and virtual private network services. It excludes root nameserver operators and top-level domain registries, providers with fewer than 100,000 monthly U.S. users or subscribers, and establishments that buy internet service for patrons or employees to use on their premises.
The term service provider means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
The term service provider includes providers of broadband internet access services, providers of domain name resolution services, and virtual private networks, but excludes root nameserver operators and top level domain registries.
The term service provider excludes— (i) any entity that provides services to fewer than 100,000 monthly users or subscribers in the United States; and (ii) any premises operator that acquires internet services from another entity to enable patrons or employees to access the internet while on the premises of the premises operator’s establishment, such as an airport, carrier, library, university, restaurant, retail store, or other such business or organization.
A court would have to declare a service a foreign piracy site when the copyright owner proves the required facts by a preponderance of the evidence. These include actual or future infringement and injury, notice or good-faith notice efforts to the operator and domain registrar, and an operator outside the United States or not reasonably located within it. The service must also be primarily designed or provided for access to infringing material, have only limited commercially significant noninfringing purposes or uses, or be marketed by or at the direction of its operator for infringement. The court could appoint a special master under Rule 53 to help assess whether the owner met its burden.
the court shall issue a declaration, with accompanying findings, that the accused online location is a foreign piracy site if the copyright owner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that— (1) the operator of the accused online location is violating or will violate an exclusive right or protection afforded the copyright owner under this title due to material accessible at the accused online location; (2) the copyright owner provided, or made good faith efforts to provide, notice of the infringement to— (A) the operator of the accused online service; and (B) the domain name registrar of the accused online service; (3) the copyright owner has been injured or will be injured by the violation; (4) the operator of the accused online service is outside of the United States, or could not be located within the United States following a reasonable investigation; and (5) the accused online service— (A) is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of providing access to material that violates an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than providing access to material that violates an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; or (C) is marketed by or at the direction of the operator of the accused online service to promote the use of the foreign online service in committing a violation of an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title.
the court may appoint a special master under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assist the court in ensuring that the copyright owner has met its burden under subsection (b).
While the case is pending or a blocking order remains in force, the operator could seek cancellation. The court would have to grant it if the operator shows that the required findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or accepts the court's authority over related claims, waives specified procedural objections subject to a transfer exception, posts a court-set bond and complies with other orders to stop the alleged violative activity. The court could pause the declaration or blocking order during that challenge. If cancellation is granted, the copyright owner would be allowed to add a copyright-law violation claim.
At any time while an action under section 1602(a) is pending, or an order under section 1604(d) is in force, the operator of the accused online service may move the court to rescind a declaration issued under section 1602(b) or an order issued under section 1604(d).
The court shall grant the motion to rescind the declaration or order if the operator of the accused online service— (1) concurrently with its motion— (A) submits to the jurisdiction of the court for all claims arising from or related to the alleged violative activity at the foreign online location; (B) waives all objections with respect to jurisdiction, venue, service of process, and forum non conveniens, except for purposes of a motion to transfer under sections 1404(a), 1406(a), or 1631 of title 28; (C) posts a bond in an amount determined by the court to be sufficient to ensure compliance with any judgment of the court related to the alleged violative activity at the foreign online location; and (D) is in compliance with any other order of the court to cease the violative activity; or (2) demonstrates that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the findings of the court under section 1602(b).
If a court grants the motion under subsection (b), the court shall grant leave for the copyright owner to amend its pleadings to add at least 1 claim of a violation under this title.
The court, at its discretion and upon motion filed by the operator of the accused online service, may stay a declaration under section 1602(b) or an order issued under section 1604(d) while a motion under subsection (a) of this section is pending before the court.
After an unrescinded declaration, the copyright owner could request blocking. The request must name all providers reasonably believed necessary, together, to reduce U.S. access by a commercially significant amount. The owner must give those providers the request and declaration, explain their ability to contest inclusion, and file notice for Federal Register publication. Ordinarily, providers would have at least 14 days after filing to respond before an order could issue, subject to the bill's deadline-adjustment authority.
In an action where a court has issued a declaration under section 1602(b), and the court has not rescinded the declaration under section 1603(b), the copyright owner may petition the court for an order enjoining each service provider named in the order consistent with subsection (d) of this section.
name all service providers that the copyright owner reasonably believes must be included to, in the aggregate, effectively reduce access to the foreign piracy site from the United States by a commercially significant amount
certify that the copyright owner— (A) provided a copy of the petition and the declaration of the court of the foreign piracy site to each named service provider; (B) informed each named service provider about its ability to contest its inclusion in any order under this section; and (C) filed a notice of the action at the United States Copyright Office, to be published in the Federal Register.
Subject to section 1608(a), the court shall set a date, not less than 14 days after the filing of the petition, before which a named service provider may enter an appearance and respond to the petition, and no order on the petition may be issued before that date.
A blocking order would require all commercially reasonable steps to prevent U.S. access through each named provider. The ordinary implementation window would be 14–30 days after notice. The court must set an expiration date no later than necessary to address the infringement and no more than 12 months after issuance, subject to the bill's deadline-adjustment and renewal provisions. This is a requirement to set an expiration date, not an automatic expiration triggered by changed circumstances. The copyright owner must post a bond sufficient to cover costs and damages suffered by a provider wrongfully subjected to the order.
requires each named service provider to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent users or subscribers from using its systems or networks to access the foreign piracy site from the United States; (4) sets a date by which each named service provider is required to implement the order that is not less than 14 days and no more than 30 days after the service provider receives notice of the order, subject to section 1608(a); (5) sets a date on which the order will expire that is not later than necessary to address the infringement, and not later than 12 months after issuance of the order; and (6) requires the copyright owner to post a bond in an amount determined by the court to be sufficient to pay the costs and damages sustained by any service provider found to have been wrongfully enjoined.
the court in an action under section 1602(a) shall have the discretion to modify any deadline or time period specified in this chapter, if it finds good cause for the modification and the modification is consistent with due process
requesting that the term of the order be extended by up to, but not more than, an additional 12 months, subject to subsequent renewal pursuant to the process described in this subsection.
A provider could be included only if named in the request and either consenting or included after a court weighs the specified factors in the totality of the circumstances. The required factors include implementation burdens, technical feasibility and effectiveness, harm to the copyright owner, collateral harm to other services or users, the additional restriction on infringing access, and public benefits or harms.
The court may not name a service provider in an order under subsection (d) unless— (A) the service provider was named in the petition under subsection (a); and (B) (i) the service provider consents to its inclusion in the order; or (ii) the court determines that the following factors, when the totality of the circumstances is considered, weigh in favor of including the service provider: (I) The burden on the service provider or the operation of its systems or networks to implement the order. (II) The technical feasibility and efficacy of the service provider implementing the order. (III) The harm likely to be suffered by the copyright owner if the service provider is not included in the order. (IV) The potential for incidental harm or interference with online services, or users of online services, other than the foreign piracy site. (V) Whether including the service provider in the order is likely to impede access by users and subscribers in the United States to infringing material on the foreign piracy site as compared to not including the service provider in the order. (VI) Any benefit or harm to the public in the United States from including the service provider.
Except where the chapter expressly provides otherwise, an order could neither prescribe specific blocking technology nor restrict the provider's technical choices. Named providers could rely on the order and the copyright owner's court submissions without investigating their accuracy. Named providers could discuss the order with users or the public but would have no duty to do so or liability for silence.
Except as expressly set forth in this chapter, an order under section 1604(d) may not— (A) prescribe, recommend, or require specific methods, techniques, equipment, or other specific technical measures or actions to implement the order, or be construed to do so; or (B) restrict, regulate, or bar the use of specific methods, techniques, equipment, or other specific technical measures or actions chosen by a service provider to implement the order, or be construed to do so.
shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy of the information presented in the order, the declaration under 1602(b), and any other information provided by the copyright owner to the court in an action under section 1602(a), and shall not have any duty or obligation to investigate or verify said information
shall be entitled to provide information to its users, subscribers, employees, investors, or the public about the order, but shall not be required or obligated to do so, and may not be held liable for failing to do so.
Copyright owners would have to deliver the order to named providers and the site operator, or make good-faith delivery efforts, where the court does not do so; file it with the Register of Copyrights; and notify the Register of modification, expiration, rescission or termination within 10 days. They must make reasonable efforts to periodically monitor the site, verify the continuing accuracy of the submitted information underlying the declaration, and notify the court and all named providers of material changes as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of them.
provide, or make a good faith effort to provide, a copy of the order to each named service provider and the operator of the foreign piracy site, to the extent the court does not do so; (2) file with the Register of Copyrights a copy of the order, and notify the Register if the order is modified, expired, rescinded, or terminated within 10 days of the modification, expiration, rescission, or termination; and (3) make reasonable efforts to— (A) periodically monitor the foreign piracy site; (B) verify the continuing accuracy of the information submitted by the copyright owner on which the foreign piracy site declaration was based, including, where applicable, domain names, internet protocol addresses, and uniform resource locators; and (C) notify the court and all named service providers of any material change to the information as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the change.
A copyright owner could ask the issuing court to compel compliance through civil contempt. Providers would be protected from enforcement for good-faith implementation efforts. They could also temporarily delay or suspend implementation when reasonably necessary to investigate mistaken blocking, maintain their systems, address security threats or comply with law enforcement requests or other court orders. Such interruptions must last no longer than necessary and be reasonable in scope and timing, considering notice of a time-sensitive event.
A copyright owner may file a motion with the court that issued an order under section 1604(d) with respect to the copyright owner, seeking an order pursuant to the inherent civil contempt powers of the court to compel compliance with the order by a service provider named in the order, subject to the provisions of this chapter.
A named service provider shall not be deemed to be in violation of an order under section 1604(d), or otherwise subject to enforcement of the order, if— (1) the conduct of the named service provider constituted good faith efforts to implement the order; or (2) the named service provider temporarily delayed or suspended implementation of the order when reasonably necessary at that time, and for no longer than necessary, and where the delay or suspension was reasonable in scope and timing considering any notification by the copyright owner of a time-sensitive event, to— (A) correct or investigate restricting access to an online service other than the foreign piracy site; (B) maintain, repair, update, or upgrade the integrity or quality of its network, systems, or operations; (C) prevent or respond to an actual or potential security threat to its network, systems, or operations; or (D) comply with law enforcement requests or other court orders.
The copyright owner could request termination of its blocking order, and the court would have to grant the request. The owner must provide notice, or make good-faith notice efforts, to named providers, the site operator and the Register of Copyrights where the court does not do so.
A copyright owner may file a motion with the court that issued an order under section 1604(d) with respect to the copyright owner, requesting termination of the order. (2) Grant The court shall grant the motion. (3) Notice The copyright owner shall provide, or make a good faith effort to provide, notice of the termination to each named service provider, the operator of the foreign piracy site, and the Register of Copyrights, to the extent the court does not do so.
Orders could be renewed repeatedly for additional terms of up to 12 months. Under the ordinary timetable, an extension request must arrive at least 60 days before expiration, and the court must allow at least 30 days after filing for responses. Renewal would require notice efforts, likely infringement and injury without an extension, a reasonable and proportionate extension, and certification of continued compliance by the copyright owner. Other order terms would remain unless the court changes them. The owner must provide notice of the new term, or make good-faith notice efforts, to named providers, the site operator and the Register where the court does not do so.
requesting that the term of the order be extended by up to, but not more than, an additional 12 months, subject to subsequent renewal pursuant to the process described in this subsection.
The court may grant the motion if— (A) the order has not expired and will not expire for at least 60 days from the date the motion is filed; (B) in the motion, the copyright owner certified that it provided, or made a good faith effort to provide, a copy of the motion to each named service provider and the operator of the foreign piracy site; (C) at least 30 days has elapsed since the motion was filed to provide an opportunity for the named service providers and the operator of the foreign piracy site to respond; (D) the copyright owner shows that, if the order is not extended— (i) the operator of the foreign piracy site is likely to violate an exclusive right or protection afforded the copyright owner under this title due to material accessible on the foreign piracy site; (ii) the violation would injure the copyright owner; and (iii) the requested extension is reasonable and proportionate to the likelihood of injury; and (E) the copyright owner certifies that it will continue to adhere to its obligations under the order and under section 1604(e).
If the court grants the motion to extend— (A) except as ordered by the court, all other terms of the original order shall remain in force; and (B) the copyright owner shall provide, or make a good faith effort to provide, notice of the new term of the order of the court to each named service provider, the operator of the foreign piracy site, and the Register of Copyrights, to the extent the court does not do so.
Copyright owners could ask to add or remove providers. Adding one would require the existing inclusion safeguards, notice and contest-right certifications, and ordinarily at least 14 days for a response. Removing one at the owner's request would require certification that the provider received the motion and would receive the removal order within 10 days.
Subject to section 1604(f)(1), the court shall grant the motion to add an additional service provider if— (A) in the motion, the copyright owner made the certifications required under section 1604(b)(2)(A) and (B) with respect to the additional service provider, and certified that it provided a copy of its motion to the additional service provider; and (B) at least 14 days has elapsed since the motion was filed to provide an opportunity for the additional service provider to appear and respond.
The court shall grant the motion to remove a named service provider if the copyright owner certifies that it provided a copy of its motion to the service provider, and that it will provide a copy of the order of the court granting the motion to the service provider within 10 days of issuance.
A named provider could request its own removal based on materially changed circumstances affecting the inclusion safeguards. The court could grant removal after ordinarily allowing at least 14 days for the copyright owner's response. The text generally bars the owner from seeking to add that provider back for at least six months.
A service provider named in an order under section 1604(d) may file a motion with the court that issued the order, requesting that the order be modified to remove the service provider from the order.
The court may grant the motion if— (A) at least 14 days has elapsed since the motion was filed to provide an opportunity for the copyright owner to respond; and (B) the service provider shows that a material change in circumstances relating to the limitations set forth in section 1604(f)(1) justifies removal of the service provider from the order. (3) Waiting period If the court grants the motion, the copyright owner may not file a motion under subsection (c) to modify the order to again add the same service provider to the order for at least 6 months.
Copyright owners or named providers could seek corrections when a site's identification becomes inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise obstructs implementation. A correction must accurately identify the same site. Courts could also initiate corrections themselves. Notice and an ordinary 14-day opportunity to respond would apply, subject to the bill's timing and emergency provisions, and courts would set implementation deadlines.
A copyright owner or named service provider may file a motion with the court that issued an order under section 1604(d) with respect to the copyright owner, requesting that the order be modified to cure a defect in the operation of the order.
The court shall grant the motion if— (A) based on available information, the identification of the foreign piracy site is no longer accurate or complete, or otherwise interferes with implementation of the order; (B) the modification would cure the defect, including that the same foreign piracy site would be correctly and accurately identified; (C) in the motion, the movant certified that it provided, or made a good faith effort to provide, a copy of the motion to each named service provider, and the operator of the foreign piracy site; and (D) subject to subsections (a) and (d) of section 1608, at least 14 days has elapsed since the motion was filed to provide an opportunity for the named service providers and operator of the foreign piracy site to respond.
A court may issue an order sua sponte modifying its prior order under section 1604(d) to cure a defect in the operation of the prior order if— (A) the court finds that subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) are satisfied; (B) the court provides notice to the copyright owner and each named service provider of its order under this paragraph; and (C) subject to subsections (a) and (d) of section 1608, the order under this paragraph is held in abeyance for at least 14 days after the notice in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph to provide an opportunity for the copyright owner and named service providers to respond.
The court shall set appropriate deadlines, where applicable, to implement any modification ordered under this subsection.
An unrelated service's operator or user could seek a correction after accepting the court's authority for that request and notifying the owner and relevant providers. The requester and service must meet the stated independence requirements, and the service must not have been declared a foreign piracy site in another proceeding under the chapter. The requester must show actual injury from restricted U.S. access and that a correction is necessary to restore access. Ordinarily, at least 14 days must pass for responses, and the court must consider equally effective alternatives that disrupt the blocking order less. Section 1606(f)(1) refers to orders under section 1604(b), although the bill places issuance of blocking orders in section 1604(d); the intended operation of this cross-reference is uncertain.
An operator or user of a third party online service may file a motion with the court that issued an order under section 1604(b), requesting that the order be modified to cure a defect in the operation of the order.
(d) Issuance of blocking order Upon a determination by the court that the copyright owner has satisfied the requirements of subsection (b), the court shall issue an order that—
The court shall grant the motion if— (A) the movant enters an appearance before the court and submits to the court’s jurisdiction for purposes of the motion; (B) in its motion, the movant certified that it provided a copy of its motion to the copyright owner and each relevant named service provider; (C) at least 14 days has elapsed since the motion was filed to provide an opportunity for the copyright owner and named service providers to respond; (D) the movant certifies— (i) the movant is the operator or a user of the third party online service; (ii) the movant is not the operator of the foreign piracy site, and is not affiliated with the foreign piracy site or its operator; (iii) the third party online service is not the foreign piracy site and is not affiliated with the foreign piracy site; and (iv) the third party online service has not been determined to be a foreign piracy site under this chapter in any other proceeding; and (E) the movant shows— (i) the order has caused access to the third party online service from the United States to be restricted for users or subscribers of at least 1 service provider named in the order; (ii) the movant has suffered an injury in fact by the restriction in access to the third party online service; and (iii) the modification is necessary to restore access to the third party online service.
The court shall consider any alternative modification presented that would comparably restore access to the third party online service, but would be less disruptive to the implementation of the order.
A third party that obtains a correction could request compensation from the copyright owner for proven injury and motion costs. An award would be discretionary, capped at $250,000, and require proof that the copyright owner caused an error resulting in the injury. Unless the court orders otherwise, other terms of the original order would remain in force. The copyright owner must provide the modification order, or make good-faith delivery efforts, to named providers, the site operator and the Register where the court does not do so; the court would set appropriate implementation deadlines.
If the court grants the motion to modify, the movant may request, and the court may award to the movant, a monetary award to be paid by the copyright owner sufficient to compensate the movant for any proven injury and costs for the motion, except that— (A) the monetary award may not exceed $250,000; and (B) the movant must show that the copyright owner caused an error that resulted in the injury to the movant.
If the court grants the motion to modify— (A) except as ordered by the court, all other terms of the original order shall remain in force; and (B) the copyright owner shall provide, or make a good faith effort to provide, a copy of the court’s order granting the motion to each named service provider, the operator of the foreign piracy site, and the Register of Copyrights, to the extent the court does not do so.
The court shall set appropriate deadlines, where applicable, to implement any modification ordered under this subsection.
Cases would be limited to federal district courts designated by the Judicial Conference. Every five years, the Conference would assess the number of judges needed; its list must meet or exceed that number, include all requesting district judges and include at least one judge from every regional circuit except the District of Columbia Circuit. Court and judge lists would be public. Cases would be randomly assigned among designated judges at the designated court; filings elsewhere would transfer to the closest designated district within the same circuit.
An action under this chapter may only be filed in a district court of the United States designated under this section by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The Judicial Conference shall determine every 5 years the number of United States district judges necessary to adjudicate all cases arising under this chapter. (2) The Judicial Conference shall maintain a list of district judges that meets or exceeds the most recent determination under paragraph (1).
The list under paragraph (2) shall include at least 1 district judge from each regional judicial circuit except the District of Columbia Circuit. (4) The list under paragraph (2) shall include all district judges who request to be included on the list, as well as additional judges designated by the Judicial Conference as necessary.
The list of designated courts under subsection (b) and the list of designated judges under subsection (b)(2) shall be publicly accessible on a website maintained by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
If an action under this chapter is filed in a district court that has been designated under this section, the case shall be randomly assigned to a judge of that court who is on the list of designated judges under subsection (b)(2). (2) Transfer If an action under this chapter is filed in a district court that has not been designated under this section, the case shall be transferred to the designated judicial district within the same judicial circuit that is geographically closest, and assigned to a judge on the list of designated judges under subsection (b)(2).
Courts could change any chapter deadline or time period for good cause if consistent with due process, including for time-sensitive events. That term covers works first publicly distributed, performed or displayed contemporaneously with, or within 24 hours after, their first authorized U.S. public performance to a general audience or distribution to the public. Emergency relief would be limited to temporary restraining orders consistent with Rule 65(b), providing only remedies expressly allowed by the chapter, when adjusting deadlines is insufficient.
Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, the court in an action under section 1602(a) shall have the discretion to modify any deadline or time period specified in this chapter, if it finds good cause for the modification and the modification is consistent with due process, including to address time-sensitive events.
The term time-sensitive event means a work that is first publicly distributed, performed, or displayed contemporaneously with, or not more than 24 hours after, the first authorized public performance to a general audience or distribution to the public of the work in the United States.
A court in an action filed under section 1602(a) may grant temporary emergency relief only in the form of a temporary restraining order, consistent with Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, which may only provide a remedy on a temporary emergency basis that is otherwise expressly set forth in this chapter, and only when the court determines that its discretion under subsection (a) is insufficient, including to address time-sensitive events.
The issuing court would retain authority over enforcement and order-modification proceedings. Documents and notices could be electronic unless the court directs otherwise. Real parties in interest who control or direct the copyright owner's litigation, and agents controlled or directed by that owner, would face the same chapter limitations as the owner.
the court that issued the order shall retain jurisdiction over any proceedings under sections 1605 and 1606.
Except as directed by a court, any requirement in this chapter to provide documents, copies of documents, notices, or notifications may be done electronically.
Any real party in interest who controls or directs a copyright owner in initiating or engaging in a proceeding under this chapter, and all agents controlled or directed by the copyright owner, shall be bound by the same limitations set forth in this chapter as the copyright owner.
The Register of Copyrights would maintain an online public registry of blocking orders that have neither expired nor been terminated. Providers would have no duty to monitor it or implement orders that do not name them. The chapter would not give the Register regulatory authority or duties beyond those expressly stated in the section.
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a public registry of all orders issued by any court under section 1604(d) that have not expired and have not been terminated, and— (1) the registry shall be made publicly accessible on a website provided by the Register; (2) no service provider shall have a duty to monitor the registry, or to implement any order on the registry in which the service provider is not named
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the Register to exercise any regulatory authority or powers, or imposing any duty or responsibility other than as expressly set forth in this section, with respect to matters arising under this chapter.
Named providers could seek reimbursement from the copyright owner with a detailed, certified cost accounting. Eligible costs would be commercially reasonable, already incurred and directly tied to implementing the specific order, including qualifying specialized staff time. Future costs, depreciation, general operations and infrastructure costs, legal fees, insurance and taxes would be excluded, as would costs more than 90 days before filing. Courts would order eligible reimbursement but could reduce it to avoid an undue burden considering the owner's resources.
A service provider named in an order under section 1604(d) may file a motion with the court that issued the order, requesting reimbursement by the copyright owner for certain costs incurred to implement the order.
Concurrent with its motion, the named service provider shall provide the court and the copyright owner with a detailed accounting of the costs for which the named service provider seeks reimbursement, and certify that the information presented is accurate.
The reimbursement awarded may include any commercially reasonable cost actually and directly incurred by the named service provider to implement the order, including portions of overhead costs directly incurred specifically to implement the order, such as portions of salary costs for specialized personnel directly attributable to time spent on implementing the specific order at issue and not other orders or other tasks.
The reimbursement awarded may not include any projected or future cost, depreciation, or other cost not actually and directly incurred already by the named service provider, or any commercially unreasonable cost.
The reimbursement awarded may not include any systemic, general, overhead, or infrastructure-related costs that relate to the operations of the named service provider generally and not specifically to implementing the order at issue, including overhead costs for general employees and business units such as human resources, general utility costs, costs for employee benefits, capital expenditures for generally-applicable upgrades or maintenance to the systems and networks of the named service provider, legal fees, insurance costs, or taxes.
The reimbursement awarded may not include any costs dating more than 90 days prior to the filing of the motion.
If the court determines that the named service provider has established incurred costs eligible for reimbursement, the court shall issue an order requiring the copyright owner to provide the reimbursement to the named service provider within a time period set by the court, except that the court may reduce the reimbursement to prevent imposing an undue burden on the copyright owner considering the resources of the copyright owner.
Named providers would be protected from liability for injuries allegedly resulting from good-faith actions or omissions to implement an order or rely on the specified court and copyright-owner information. The protection would apply to claims by users, the requesting copyright owner, the site operator, other third parties and governmental authorities.
All service providers named in an order under section 1604(d) shall not be liable for any injury alleged by a user of the system or network of the service provider, the petitioner that sought the order issued under 1604(d), the operator, or a user of the foreign piracy site, or any other third party or governmental authority to have resulted from an action taken, or not taken, in good faith by the service provider— (1) to implement the order; or (2) in reliance on information described in section 1604(f)(3)(A).
Covered providers, whether or not named in an order, would be protected from monetary liability for direct or secondary copyright infringement arising from providing or enabling access to a foreign piracy site. The exception would be providers acting in active concert with the site to infringe copyright.
A service provider, whether or not named in an order issued under section 1604(d), shall not be liable for monetary relief for any claim of direct or secondary infringement of copyright arising from the service provider having provided or enabled, or continuing to provide or enable, access to a foreign piracy site, unless the service provider acted or is acting in active concert with the foreign piracy site to infringe the exclusive rights of any copyright owner.
Copyright owners seeking court orders requiring providers to block foreign online locations would be limited to existing section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii), or the proposed blocking procedure for sites declared foreign piracy sites. The supplied text references but does not reproduce that existing alternative, so its requirements and the full change from existing law cannot be established from this bundle.
A copyright owner only shall obtain injunctive or other equitable relief in the form of an order requiring a service provider to block access to a foreign online location— (1) as provided in section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii), or (2) in the case of a foreign online location designated as a foreign piracy site under section 1602(b), as provided in section 1604.
Except as necessary to enforce the specified declarations and orders, the bill would bar using the chapter, its proceedings and records, or providers' participation, knowledge and implementation performance as evidence in any court case or proceeding. The restriction would expressly include attempts to support copyright-infringement claims against providers.
Except as necessary to enforce an order issued by a court pursuant to sections 1602 and 1604, the following shall not be admissible as evidence in any case or proceeding brought by any party in any court, for any purpose, including in support of a claim that any service provider has engaged in direct or secondary copyright infringement: (1) This chapter and the record of any proceeding under this chapter, including all orders, decisions, or determinations issued by a court in any proceeding brought under this chapter, all submissions to the court in any such proceeding, and the existence of any such proceeding or orders in any such proceeding regardless of any subsequent termination, expiration, rescission, extension, or modification of such orders. (2) The participation, knowledge, performance, success, or failure of a service provider with respect to the implementation of any order under this chapter, or the participation or knowledge of the service provider with respect to any proceeding under this chapter.
The chapter would not itself require unnamed providers to block a site or make them liable for failing to do so. Its construction rules also state that it would not change blocking obligations outside the chapter or other laws' claims, liabilities, immunities and safe harbors, including those in section 512. The referenced laws are not reproduced, so their full interaction with the proposal cannot be determined from the supplied text.
Nothing in this chapter may be construed to— (1) create any obligation or duty for a service provider that is not named in an order under section 1604(d) to prevent access to the foreign piracy site whether or not identified in the order, or create any liability for failure to do so; (2) provide for or modify any liability, obligation, or duty to prevent access to a foreign piracy site outside of this chapter; or (3) modify or affect the applicability or interpretation of any other provision of law, or change or affect any claims, liability, limitation of liability, immunity, or safe harbor arising under or set forth in any other provision of law, including section 512 or any other provision of this title.
The Register of Copyrights would report to Congress two and five years after the Act's effective date on implementation and impacts on foreign digital piracy, the copyright system and federal courts. The Judicial Conference would make its initial assessment of needed judges within six months after enactment.
The Register of Copyrights shall provide a report to Congress 2 years after the effective date of this Act, and another report 5 years after the effective date, on the implementation and impact of this Act on foreign digital copyright piracy, the United States copyright system, and the Federal judiciary.
The Judicial Conference of the United States shall, within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act, conduct the initial determination of the number of United States district judges necessary to adjudicate all cases arising under this Act.
The Act would override state and local laws or regulations concerning foreign digital copyright piracy online, including copyright laws and laws with equivalent rights and remedies.
This Act shall preempt any State, county, municipal, or other local law or regulation concerning foreign digital copyright piracy online, including those found in copyright law or laws with equivalent rights and remedies.
If a provision or its application were held invalid, the bill directs that the remaining provisions and other applications continue unaffected.
If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Most provisions would take effect six months after enactment. The limits on providers' monetary liability and on court-ordered blocking in proposed sections 1610(b) and 1610(c) would take effect on enactment. These are conditional implementation dates, not evidence that enactment occurred.
The effective date of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall be 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, except that section 1610(b) and section 1610(c) of title 17, United States Code (as added by section 2), shall be effective as of the date of enactment.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 14, 2026. It does not establish any later legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T16:16:03Z. 2026-09-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-14: Introduced in House 2026-09-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; the bundle does not establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials or other versions.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify express category-specific exemptions within the bill's main policy. Classification as a targeted carve-out is not a judgment about its justification.
Entities serving fewer than 100,000 monthly U.S. users or subscribers would be excluded from the service-provider definition, exempting that size-defined group from the proposed orders directed at covered providers.
The term service provider excludes— (i) any entity that provides services to fewer than 100,000 monthly users or subscribers in the United States
requires each named service provider to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent users or subscribers from using its systems or networks to access the foreign piracy site from the United States
Root nameserver operators and top-level domain registries would be expressly excluded even though the provider definition includes domain-name resolution services. This gives those specific internet infrastructure categories an exemption within the bill's main blocking policy.
The term service provider includes providers of broadband internet access services, providers of domain name resolution services, and virtual private networks, but excludes root nameserver operators and top level domain registries.
requires each named service provider to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent users or subscribers from using its systems or networks to access the foreign piracy site from the United States
Establishments buying internet access for patrons or employees to use on-site would be excluded from the provider definition and thus from the proposed orders directed at covered providers. The exemption expressly covers examples such as airports, libraries, universities, restaurants and retail stores and is tied to their role as premises operators.
The term service provider excludes—
any premises operator that acquires internet services from another entity to enable patrons or employees to access the internet while on the premises of the premises operator’s establishment, such as an airport, carrier, library, university, restaurant, retail store, or other such business or organization.
requires each named service provider to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent users or subscribers from using its systems or networks to access the foreign piracy site from the United States
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI