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. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18] · D–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.
Source last updated: Oct 7, 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.10575 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.10575 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.10575 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.10575 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 · 2026-09-24 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.
The proposal would let copyright owners and exclusive licensees ask federal courts to designate qualifying foreign websites as piracy sites, then order covered internet providers to take reasonable steps to block access by users in the United States. Courts would consider likely harm, technical feasibility, interference with other content, and the public interest. Providers would receive exceptions and liability protections, while operators of other sites blocked during implementation could ask the court to restore access.
The owner or exclusive licensee of an exclusive right described in section 106 that is being or will be injured by material or activity that violates a right or protection afforded under this title may, subject to the requirements under paragraph (2), bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States to petition the court to issue an order to designate a foreign online location as a foreign digital piracy site.
the petitioner that sought the order may petition the same court to issue a subsequent order to direct service providers to take reasonable measures to prevent users in the United States from using the system or network of those service providers to access the foreign digital piracy site.
(B) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the petitioner if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain access to the applicable foreign digital piracy site; (C) whether implementation of the order— (i) would be technically feasible and effective; (ii) would not interfere with access to material at other online locations that does not violate an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; and (iii) would disserve the public interest;
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall not be deemed to be in violation of that order if the service provider temporarily suspends compliance by the service provider with that order when reasonably necessary
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be immune from liability for any injury alleged by a foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order, notwithstanding any subsequent determination that the foreign digital piracy site was inaccurately identified in the order or does not meet the requirements under subsection (b).
the operator of that other online location may move to modify or rescind that order so as to enable access to the other online location.
Section 1 would name the bill the Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act of 2026.
The proposed process would cover publicly accessible websites or identifiable online locations whose operators are outside the United States or cannot be determined to be inside it. A location would become a “foreign digital piracy site” only through a federal district court designation.
(2) Foreign digital piracy site The term foreign digital piracy site means a foreign online location that has been designated as a foreign digital piracy site by an order of a district court of the United States issued under this section. (3) Foreign online location 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); and (C) identifiable by 1 or more Internet Protocol addresses, fully qualified domains, or other similar online identifiers.
Covered providers would include broadband providers with at least 50,000 subscribers and public domain name resolution providers with annual revenue above $100 million. Domain name resolution is the service that connects internet names with network addresses.
(1) Broadband provider The term broadband provider means a provider of broadband internet access service, as defined in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), that provides such service to not fewer than 50,000 subscribers.
(5) Public domain name resolution services The term public domain name resolution services means domain name resolution services that are accessible to the general public. (6) Service provider The term service provider— (A) means— (i) a broadband provider; or (ii) a provider of public domain name resolution services that has an annual revenue of more than $100,000,000;
The provider definition would exclude entities offering domain name resolution exclusively through encrypted protocols, entities exclusively offering virtual private networks or similar encrypted routing services, and establishments buying internet access for patrons. A virtual private network routes traffic through a remote server using an encrypted connection and masks the user's internet address.
(B) does not include— (i) an entity that provides domain name system resolution functions or services exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols; (ii) an entity that exclusively provides virtual private network services or similar service that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers; or (iii) a premises operator, such as a coffee shop, bookstore, airline, library, university, or other business, that acquires broadband internet access service from an internet service provider to enable patrons to access the internet from the establishment of the operator.
The term virtual private network means a service that establishes an encrypted connection between a device and a remote server that— (A) routes the internet traffic of the user of that device through the remote server; and (B) masks the internet protocol address of the user described in subparagraph (A).
A copyright owner or exclusive licensee facing current or future injury could request designation. The court would need to find likely infringement and likely irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired—including for a forthcoming live-event transmission.
The owner or exclusive licensee of an exclusive right described in section 106 that is being or will be injured by material or activity that violates a right or protection afforded under this title may, subject to the requirements under paragraph (2), bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States
(i) the petitioner is the owner or exclusive licensee of an exclusive right described in section 106; (ii) (I) with respect to material or activity at the foreign online location that is the subject of the petition— (aa) such material or activity likely violates an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title to the petitioner; and (bb) the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of that material or activity; or (II) with respect to the transmission of a live event at the foreign online location that is the subject of the petition— (aa) the transmission of a live event will likely violate an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title to the petitioner; and (bb) the petitioner will likely suffer irreparable harm as a result of that transmission of a live event;
The live-event provisions would cover commercial digital transmissions occurring simultaneously or nearly simultaneously with a public event, such as a concert or sporting event. Digital transmission would include satellite broadcasting.
(4) Live event The term live event means an event that is performed publicly (such as a concert, sporting event, or award show).
The term transmission of a live event means the digital transmission of a live event— (i) simultaneously or nearly simultaneously with the live occurrence or public performance of the event; and (ii) for a commercial purpose. (B) Digital transmission For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term digital transmission includes transmission by satellite broadcasting.
The applicant would need to make a reasonable effort to notify the operator and certify that a reasonable investigation of public information could not establish that the operator is within the United States. The applicant would also need to show that the site primarily serves infringement, has no commercially significant noninfringing purpose or use, or is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of its operator for infringement.
(iii) the petitioner has made a reasonable effort to provide the operator of the foreign online location described in this subparagraph with notice of the action brought by the petitioner; and (iv) the petitioner has certified that the petitioner cannot, after a reasonable investigation based on publicly available information, determine the operator of the foreign online location described in this subparagraph to be within the United States;
(B) upon a showing by the petitioner that the foreign online location described in subparagraph (A)— (i) is primarily designed or primarily provided for the purpose of violating an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; (ii) has no commercially significant purpose or use other than committing a violation described in clause (i); or (iii) is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of the operator of the foreign online location to promote the use of the foreign online location in committing a violation described in clause (i).
An operator could contest designation within 20 days after filing of the petition. The court could nevertheless issue an order without the operator's participation once the requirements were satisfied, subject to the operator-compliance exception. If the operator did not appear, the court could appoint a court assistant, called a master, to help assess the requirements.
The operator of the foreign online location that is the subject of a petition under paragraph (1) may, not later than 20 days after the date on which that petition is filed, appear before the court in which the petition is pending to contest the issuance of the order to designate the foreign online location as a foreign digital piracy site, except that the court may issue an order under this subsection on an ex parte basis at any time after the court determines that the requirements under paragraph (2) are satisfied, subject to the limitation under paragraph (5).
If the operator of a foreign online location that is the subject of a petition under paragraph (1) does not appear before the court pursuant to paragraph (3), the court may, in the discretion of the court, appoint a master pursuant to rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assist in the determination of the court as to whether the requirements of this subsection have been satisfied.
The court could not issue a designation, and could withdraw an existing one, if the operator appeared as provided, accepted the court's authority over related claims, posted a sufficient bond securing compliance with a judgment, and obeyed other court orders to stop the activity.
A court may not issue an order to designate, and may rescind an order designating, a foreign online location as a foreign digital piracy site under this subsection if the operator of the foreign online location— (A) appears before the court pursuant to paragraph (3); (B) submits to the jurisdiction of the court for all claims arising from or related to alleged violative activity at the foreign online location; (C) posts a bond sufficient to ensure compliance with any judgment of the court related to alleged violative activity at the foreign online location; and (D) complies with any other order of the court to cease the violative activity.
Unless withdrawn under the operator-compliance exception, a designation would expire after 360 days if no subsequent access-blocking order were sought. Otherwise, it would expire when all access-blocking orders for that location expired.
Unless rescinded under paragraph (5), an order to designate a foreign online location as a foreign digital piracy site under this subsection shall expire— (A) on the date that is 360 days after the date on which the court issues the order, if no subsequent order is sought under subsection (c) with respect to that foreign online location; or (B) upon the expiration of all orders issued under subsection (c) with respect to that foreign online location.
After designation, the successful applicant could ask the same court for an order requiring providers to restrict U.S. access. The applicant would have to identify all affected providers and certify delivery of the designation, petition, and notice of their right to contest inclusion. Providers would have 20 days after receiving notice to contest inclusion.
the petitioner that sought the order may petition the same court to issue a subsequent order to direct service providers to take reasonable measures to prevent users in the United States from using the system or network of those service providers to access the foreign digital piracy site.
(A) if the petition identifies all service providers to be subject to the order; and (B) upon certification by the petitioner that the petitioner has provided each service provider identified in the petition with— (i) a copy of the order issued under subsection (b); (ii) a copy of the petition filed under this subsection; and (iii) notice informing each such service provider of the right of the service provider to contest the inclusion of the service provider in the petition filed under this subsection, as provided in paragraph (4).
Not later than 20 days after the date on which a service provider receives the notice required under paragraph (2)(B) with respect to a petition filed under this subsection, the service provider may appear before the court in which the petition was filed and contest the inclusion of the service provider in that petition.
Before issuing an access-blocking order, the court would consider individual and combined burdens on the provider, likely harm to the applicant, technical feasibility and effectiveness, interference with noninfringing material elsewhere, whether the order would harm the public interest, and less burdensome alternatives with comparable effectiveness.
In determining whether to issue an order under this subsection, a court shall consider— (A) whether such an order, either alone or in combination with other such orders obligating action by the same service provider, would significantly burden either the service provider or the operation of the system or network of the service provider; (B) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the petitioner if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain access to the applicable foreign digital piracy site; (C) whether implementation of the order— (i) would be technically feasible and effective; (ii) would not interfere with access to material at other online locations that does not violate an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; and (iii) would disserve the public interest; and (D) whether less burdensome and comparably effective means are available to prevent or restrain access to the applicable foreign digital piracy site.
An order would require implementation to begin as soon as practicable for the provider after notice and would expire one year after the specified start date unless extended. It could not dictate particular technical measures or other compliance actions.
(A) specify that the applicable service provider shall begin implementing that order as soon as practicable for that service provider after receipt of the notice described in paragraph (6); (B) provide that such order will expire 1 year after the date specified under subparagraph (A), subject to any extension granted under paragraph (9);
An order issued under this subsection may not prescribe, or be construed to prescribe, any specific technical measures to be used or other actions to be taken by a service provider to comply with that order.
The applicant would have to make ongoing reasonable, good-faith efforts to verify site information and report material changes to the court and affected providers. Providers could rely on the order and updated information without independently investigating their accuracy.
(C) expressly require the applicable petitioner to— (i) use reasonable, good-faith efforts to verify on an ongoing basis the accuracy of information provided in the petition regarding the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order, including, as applicable, the domain names and Internet Protocol addresses at which the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order is operating; and (ii) if the information underlying the petition has materially changed, provide the court that issued the order and each service provider identified in the order with the information described in clause (i); (D) expressly provide that a service provider identified in the order may rely on information provided in the order and any updated information provided by the petitioner with respect to the order under subparagraph (C); and (E) expressly provide that a service provider identified in the order has no independent obligation, at the time the order is adopted or at any time thereafter, to investigate or otherwise verify or confirm the accuracy of information provided under subparagraph (C) or (D).
The court would notify the applicant and affected providers of an access-blocking order. Its notice would include implementation instructions, the restriction on prescribing particular technical measures, provider obligations, and provider immunities.
The court shall provide notice to the petitioner and each service provider subject to an order issued under this subsection, which shall include— (A) the instructions described in paragraph (5); (B) the limitation described in paragraph (7); (C) the obligations of the service provider under subsection (d); and (D) the immunities of the service provider under subsection (e).
An applicant could request additional providers be added to an existing order. The court would have to grant the request upon the specified showing that each additional provider received both orders, the request, and notice of a right to contest inclusion. Each additional provider would have 20 days after notice to contest.
At any time after the issuance of an order under this subsection, the petitioner that sought the order may move to amend the order by identifying 1 or more additional service providers to which the order should apply.
The court shall grant a motion made under subparagraph (A) if the petitioner has demonstrated that the petitioner has provided each service provider identified in that motion with— (i) a copy of the order issued under subsection (b); (ii) a copy of the order issued under this subsection; (iii) a copy of the motion filed under this paragraph; and (iv) notice informing the service provider of the right of the service provider to contest the inclusion of the service provider in the motion filed under this paragraph, as provided in subparagraph (C).
Not later than 20 days after the date on which a service provider receives notice under subparagraph (B) with respect to a motion made under this paragraph, the service provider may appear and contest the inclusion of the service provider in that motion.
Before an access-blocking order expired, the applicant could request an extension. The court would have to grant it subject to the provider-identification and notice requirements in paragraph (2); each extension could add no more than one year beyond the existing expiration date.
(9) Extension of order duration (A) In general At any time before the expiration of an order issued under this subsection, as provided under paragraph (5)(B), the petitioner that sought the order may move to extend the order. (B) Requirements The court shall grant a motion made under subparagraph (A), subject to the requirements under paragraph (2). (C) Length of extension An extension granted under this paragraph shall be for not longer than 1 year beyond the expiration of the order that is in effect, as of the date on which the extension is granted.
(A) if the petition identifies all service providers to be subject to the order; and (B) upon certification by the petitioner that the petitioner has provided each service provider identified in the petition with— (i) a copy of the order issued under subsection (b); (ii) a copy of the petition filed under this subsection; and (iii) notice informing each such service provider of the right of the service provider to contest the inclusion of the service provider in the petition filed under this subsection, as provided in paragraph (4).
A provider could ask the court to make the applicant reimburse reasonable direct compliance costs. Reimbursement would be discretionary, and a detailed request would be due within 60 days after the costs were incurred. Capital expenditures, infrastructure, overhead, and attorneys' fees would be excluded.
Upon motion by a service provider subject to an order issued under this subsection, the court may order the petitioner that sought the order to pay reasonable costs directly incurred by the service provider to comply with the order.
A motion made under subparagraph (A)— (i) shall include a detailed list of each cost described in that subparagraph; (ii) may not include costs for capital expenditures, infrastructure, overhead, or attorneys’ fees; and (iii) shall be filed not later than 60 days after the date on which the costs sought to be recovered were incurred.
A notified provider would have to take reasonable measures to prevent users in the United States from accessing the designated site through its network. The provider could choose whether to tell subscribers attempting access that a court order caused the denial.
A service provider that receives notice under subsection (c)(6) shall take reasonable measures to prevent users in the United States from using the system or network of that service provider to access the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the applicable order.
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) may elect to inform the subscribers of the service provider attempting to access the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order that access by the subscribers to the foreign digital piracy site has been denied pursuant to a judicial order to direct that denial of access.
Providers could temporarily suspend compliance without violating an order when reasonably necessary to investigate or correct interference with noninfringing material elsewhere, maintain network integrity or quality, perform maintenance or upgrades, or address actual or potential security threats.
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall not be deemed to be in violation of that order if the service provider temporarily suspends compliance by the service provider with that order when reasonably necessary— (A) to correct or investigate potential interference with access to material at other online locations that does not violate an exclusive right or protection afforded under this title; (B) to maintain the integrity or quality of the network or operations of the service provider; (C) to upgrade or maintain the operations or network of the service provider, including any mechanism used to implement that order; or (D) to prevent or respond to an actual or potential security threat to the operations or network of the service provider.
Providers subject to orders would receive immunity for alleged injuries from good-faith actions or omissions implementing an order or relying on supplied information. This protection would apply to claims by network users, the applicant, site operators and users, other third parties, and governmental authorities.
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be immune from liability for any injury alleged by an entity described in subparagraph (B) to have occurred as a result of a measure or other action taken in good faith (or in good faith not taken) by the service provider— (i) to implement the order; or (ii) based on information provided to the service provider under subsection (c).
an entity described in this subparagraph means— (i) a user of the system or network of the service provider; (ii) the petitioner that sought the order issued under subsection (c) that identifies the service provider; (iii) the operator, or a user, of the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the applicable order; or (iv) any other third party or governmental authority.
A separate immunity would protect providers against injuries alleged by the designated site even if the site were later found to have been misidentified or not to qualify for designation. These immunities would not limit the issuing court's authority to compel compliance.
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be immune from liability for any injury alleged by a foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order, notwithstanding any subsequent determination that the foreign digital piracy site was inaccurately identified in the order or does not meet the requirements under subsection (b).
Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of a court issuing an order under subsection (c) to compel compliance with the order.
The issuing court would review providers' compliance actions and omissions, but could not find noncompliance based on a failure to investigate the accuracy of site information. If implementation blocked another online location, that location's operator could ask to modify or cancel the order to restore access.
A measure taken or not taken by a service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be subject to review by the court that issued the order.
A court that issues an order under subsection (c) with respect to a service provider may not determine that the service provider has failed to satisfy the obligations of the service provider under that order based on the failure of the service provider to conduct an affirmative investigation regarding the accuracy of information regarding the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order
If a service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c), when implementing the order, prevents a user from accessing an online location other than the foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order, the operator of that other online location may move to modify or rescind that order so as to enable access to the other online location.
At the applicant's request, the court could amend a designation or access-blocking order after finding that the previously designated site had moved or reappeared at a different domain or internet address, or used techniques that made the original order ineffective. The amendment provision also provides for notice under the existing order-notice requirements.
A court, upon motion by the petitioner for an order under subsection (b) or (c), and after a determination by the court that such petitioner has demonstrated that a foreign online location previously designated in an action brought under this section to be a foreign digital piracy site is accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain name or Internet Protocol address, or has engaged in circumvention techniques that render the initial order ineffective, may— (1) amend the order issued under subsection (b) or (c) accordingly; and (2) provide notice of the amended order under paragraph (1) in accordance with the requirements under subsection (c)(6).
Courts would have to notify the Register of Copyrights when issuing, amending, or withdrawing designation and access-blocking orders. The Register would have to publish each notification on the Copyright Office website.
A court shall notify the Register of Copyrights regarding any order that the court issues, amends, or rescinds under subsection (b) or (c). (2) Availability on website The Register of Copyrights shall make each notification provided under paragraph (1) publicly available on the website of the Copyright Office.
The new section would preserve the applicability and interpretation of other law, including existing copyright provisions, principles governing responsibility for another party's infringement, and the referenced court-authority statute. It would also preserve existing provider liability limits under copyright section 512.
Nothing in this section may be construed to affect— (1) the applicability or interpretation of any other provision of law or principle of equity, including— (A) the requirements of section 512 or any other provision of this title; (B) principles of secondary liability; or (C) section 1651 of title 28; or (2) the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512.
The proposed new section 502A would take effect 180 days after enactment. This is a contingent implementation date, not evidence that enactment has occurred.
(j) Effective date This section shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act of 2026.
Related amendments would add the new order authority to existing copyright section 502, add references to orders alongside injunctions—court commands—in its enforcement language, and update the chapter's table of sections. The new authority would remain subject to section 502A's requirements.
(2) subject to the provisions of section 502A, issue an order directing a service provider, as defined in that section, to take reasonable measures to prevent a foreign digital piracy site, as defined in that section, from using the system or network of that service provider to make that foreign digital piracy site available to users in the United States.
(3) in subsection (b)— (A) in the first sentence— (i) by inserting or order after such injunction; and (ii) by inserting or subject to the order before the semicolon; and (B) in the second sentence— (i) by inserting or issuing the order after granting the injunction; and (ii) by inserting or order after of the injunction.
The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking the item relating to section 502 and inserting the following: 502. Remedies for infringement: Injunctions and orders. ; and (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 502, as amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following: 502A. Orders to designate and direct against foreign digital piracy sites.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 7, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-07T17:18:58Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 attached to appropriations was identified in 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains specific exclusions from provider coverage and special liability protections tied to the proposed blocking process. These classifications identify differential treatment, not improper motives or unjustified benefits.
Providers below the specified size thresholds would fall outside the relevant coverage categories: broadband providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers and public domain name resolution providers with annual revenue of $100 million or less. These thresholds narrow which providers could be required to implement the proposed orders.
The term broadband provider means a provider of broadband internet access service, as defined in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), that provides such service to not fewer than 50,000 subscribers.
The term service provider— (A) means— (i) a broadband provider; or (ii) a provider of public domain name resolution services that has an annual revenue of more than $100,000,000;
Entities exclusively providing encrypted domain name resolution, entities exclusively providing virtual private networks or similar encrypted routing services, and establishments purchasing broadband for patrons would be expressly excluded from provider coverage. These are service-specific and operational carve-outs from the main blocking framework.
(B) does not include— (i) an entity that provides domain name system resolution functions or services exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols; (ii) an entity that exclusively provides virtual private network services or similar service that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers; or (iii) a premises operator, such as a coffee shop, bookstore, airline, library, university, or other business, that acquires broadband internet access service from an internet service provider to enable patrons to access the internet from the establishment of the operator.
Providers subject to orders would receive special liability protection for good-faith implementation or reliance on supplied information. A separate provision would protect them against injuries alleged by the designated site even after a determination of mistaken identification or failure to meet designation requirements. These protections benefit the providers implementing the main policy, while preserving the court's ability to compel compliance.
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be immune from liability for any injury alleged by an entity described in subparagraph (B) to have occurred as a result of a measure or other action taken in good faith (or in good faith not taken) by the service provider— (i) to implement the order; or (ii) based on information provided to the service provider under subsection (c).
A service provider subject to an order issued under subsection (c) shall be immune from liability for any injury alleged by a foreign digital piracy site that is the subject of the order, notwithstanding any subsequent determination that the foreign digital piracy site was inaccurately identified in the order or does not meet the requirements under subsection (b).
Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of a court issuing an order under subsection (c) to compel compliance with the order.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 7, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI