Sunset Section 230 Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2026
Bottom line
This bill eliminates the legal shield for interactive computer services, potentially making them liable for third-party content and their own moderation actions, with an effective date two years after enactment.
What it actually does
This bill repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently provides broad liability protections to online platforms for content posted by users and for their content moderation decisions. It also includes numerous conforming amendments across various U.S. codes to remove references to Section 230 and update related definitions. The repeal would take effect two years after the bill's enactment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that Section 230 has allowed large tech companies to avoid accountability for harmful content, including misinformation, hate speech, and illegal activities, and that its repeal would incentivize platforms to moderate content more responsibly or face legal consequences. They believe it would restore balance and hold platforms accountable for their role in disseminating content.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that repealing Section 230 would stifle free speech online, force platforms to over-moderate to avoid lawsuits, and disproportionately harm smaller platforms that lack the resources for extensive content moderation and legal defense. They argue it would lead to a less diverse and more censored internet, making platforms liable for content they did not create.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core purpose.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934
This provision directly eliminates Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 currently protects "interactive computer services" (like social media platforms, forums, and websites) from liability for content posted by their users and for their good-faith efforts to moderate content. Its repeal would remove these legal protections, potentially making platforms legally responsible for user-generated content and their content moderation decisions.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that repealing Section 230 will hold platforms accountable for harmful content, forcing them to take more responsibility for what appears on their sites, thereby reducing the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and illegal material.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that repealing Section 230 will lead to excessive censorship and removal of legitimate speech, as platforms will err on the side of caution to avoid lawsuits, and will disproportionately harm smaller platforms that cannot afford extensive legal and moderation teams.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between holding platforms accountable for harmful content and protecting free speech and the ability of platforms to moderate content without fear of excessive litigation.
Section 2(b)
Technical and Conforming Amendments Across U.S. Code
This section makes necessary technical changes to various other federal laws that currently reference Section 230. These amendments update definitions, remove specific clauses that relied on Section 230's protections, and redirect references to other sections of the Communications Act (like Section 223) for definitions of terms such as "interactive computer service" and "Internet." This ensures that other statutes remain coherent after Section 230's repeal.
Section 2(c)
Two-Year Delayed Effective Date
This provision stipulates that the repeal of Section 230 and all associated conforming amendments will not take effect immediately upon the bill's enactment. Instead, there will be a two-year delay before the changes become law. This grace period is intended to give interactive computer services and other affected entities time to adjust their business practices, legal strategies, and content moderation policies in anticipation of the new legal landscape.
This amendment strikes a clause in Title 18, Section 2257(h)(2)(B)(v) which currently states that "deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934... shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication." This clause relates to record-keeping requirements for sexually explicit material and currently provides a carve-out for platforms moderating such content under Section 230. Its removal means that the act of deleting certain content, even if consistent with Section 230(c) (which will be repealed), will no longer be explicitly excluded from potentially constituting "selection or alteration of content" in the context of child exploitation material laws.
Section 2(b)(4)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical conforming amendments, ensuring consistency across the U.S. Code after a major repeal. It's not necessarily evasive but requires legal expertise to fully grasp its implications.
Case for: Supporters of the repeal would argue that removing this specific carve-out ensures that platforms cannot use Section 230's protections to avoid scrutiny or responsibility related to the handling of child exploitation material, even if their actions were moderation-related. It aligns with the broader goal of increasing platform accountability.
Case against: Opponents might argue that removing this specific protection could create ambiguity or new legal risks for platforms actively trying to remove child exploitation material, potentially disincentivizing proactive moderation if the act of deletion itself could be construed as "selection or alteration" in a way that creates liability.
Estimated impact: This amendment clarifies the legal landscape for platforms regarding their moderation of child exploitation material, potentially increasing their legal exposure or requiring more stringent internal processes to document moderation actions.