PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 9, 2025
Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act or the COLLUDE Act
This bill limits federal liability protection, sometimes referred to as Section 230 protection, that generally precludes providers and users of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company) from being held legally responsible for content provided by a third party.
Specifically, the bill removes the protection if a provider restricts access to or availability of content containing political speech because of a governmental request unless the request serves a legitimate law enforcement or national security purpose.
In addition, the bill changes legal procedures for applying the protection. Currently, the protection serves as broad immunity that typically allows the early dismissal of lawsuits, thereby preempting lawsuits and statutes that impose liability for third-party content. This bill makes the protection an affirmative defense, which means the provider or user must prove that the protection applies before the lawsuit may be dismissed.
People & committees
Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.69 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 S.69 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 S.69 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 S.69 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.