American Copyright Protection Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a new legal framework to combat foreign online copyright piracy by enabling U.S. courts to order internet service providers to block access to infringing foreign websites.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new Chapter 16 in Title 17, United States Code, creating a judicial process for copyright owners to obtain court orders blocking access to foreign online locations determined to be "foreign piracy sites." It outlines procedures for courts to declare a site a foreign piracy site, for service providers to implement blocking orders, and for various motions related to these orders, including cost reimbursement for service providers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides copyright owners with a crucial tool to combat rampant online piracy originating from outside the U.S., protecting American creators and industries from significant economic harm. They contend it establishes a balanced judicial process with due process protections and safeguards for legitimate internet services.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could lead to overblocking of legitimate content, stifle internet freedom, and place undue technical and financial burdens on internet service providers. They may also raise concerns about the potential for censorship and the effectiveness of site-blocking as a long-term solution to piracy.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the new judicial process and its implications, which may exceed the time typically allotted for public review.
Title 17, Chapter 16, Sec. 1602
Judicial Determination of Foreign Piracy Sites
This section allows a copyright owner to sue in federal court to have a foreign online location declared a "foreign piracy site." The court must make this declaration if the copyright owner proves the site's operator is infringing copyrights, the owner attempted to notify the operator and domain registrar, the owner is being harmed, the operator is outside the U.S., and the site is primarily designed for, has limited legitimate use other than, or is marketed for copyright infringement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for establishing a legal basis to address foreign piracy, ensuring due process by requiring a judicial determination based on clear criteria before any blocking can occur.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the criteria for determining a "foreign piracy site" could be overly broad or subject to misinterpretation, potentially leading to the targeting of legitimate sites or content.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for copyright enforcement with the potential for restricting access to online content and the jurisdictional challenges of foreign entities.
Title 17, Chapter 16, Sec. 1604
Issuance of Blocking Orders
After a site is declared a foreign piracy site, copyright owners can petition the court for an order requiring service providers to block access to it. The petition must name all necessary service providers to effectively reduce U.S. access. The court then issues an order identifying the site, naming service providers, requiring "commercially reasonable steps" to block access, setting implementation and expiration dates (max 12 months), and requiring a bond from the copyright owner.
Title 17, Chapter 16, Sec. 1606
Modifying and Extending Blocking Orders
This section details how blocking orders can be managed after issuance. Copyright owners can move to terminate or extend an order (up to 12 months at a time) and add or remove service providers. Service providers can move for removal if circumstances change. Third parties (operators or users of other online services) can also move to modify an order if it inadvertently restricts access to their legitimate service, and may be awarded up to $250,000 in compensation if the copyright owner caused the error.
Title 17, Chapter 16, Sec. 1609
Reimbursement for Service Provider Costs
Named service providers can file a motion to be reimbursed by the copyright owner for "commercially reasonable cost actually and directly incurred" to implement a blocking order. This includes direct overhead costs like specialized personnel salaries, but excludes projected costs, depreciation, systemic overhead, general employee costs, capital expenditures for general upgrades, legal fees, insurance, or taxes. The court can reduce the reimbursement to prevent undue burden on the copyright owner.
Title 17, Chapter 16, Sec. 1610
Service Provider Liability Protections
This section grants significant liability protections to service providers. Named service providers are not liable for injuries resulting from good faith actions (or inactions) taken to implement an order or in reliance on court information. All service providers are protected from monetary relief for direct or secondary copyright infringement claims related to providing access to a foreign piracy site, unless they acted in "active concert" with the piracy site. It also limits injunctive relief against service providers to specific provisions within this chapter or section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii).
Excludes entities with fewer than 100,000 monthly users/subscribers in the U.S. and premises operators (like airports, libraries, restaurants) from the definition of "service provider" subject to blocking orders.
Sec. 1601(6)(C)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define scope, but also strategically limits the reach of the bill to larger entities, potentially reducing political opposition from small businesses and public institutions.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents undue burden on small businesses and public access points, focusing enforcement on major internet infrastructure providers.
Case against: Critics might argue this creates loopholes, allowing smaller, potentially infringing, service providers or public Wi-Fi networks to remain unaddressed, or that it creates an uneven playing field.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the scope of entities directly subject to blocking orders, concentrating implementation burden on larger ISPs.
States that this chapter, its proceedings, orders, and a service provider's participation/knowledge related to it, are generally not admissible as evidence in other copyright infringement cases, except as necessary to enforce orders under this chapter.
Sec. 1611(a)
Why it matters:This is a critical legal protection for service providers, ensuring that their compliance with blocking orders or participation in these proceedings cannot be used against them to establish general copyright infringement liability in other contexts. It's a technical legal carve-out.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential to provide service providers with legal certainty and encourage their cooperation without fear that compliance will be used to establish broader liability.
Case against: Some copyright advocates might argue that this provision could limit the ability to use relevant information in broader infringement cases, though the bill aims to create a distinct enforcement channel.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the legal risk for service providers, making them more willing to comply with blocking orders.
Explicitly states that copyright owners can only obtain injunctive or other equitable relief in the form of an order requiring a service provider to block access to a foreign online location as provided in this new Chapter 16 or under section 512(j)(1)(B)(ii) (DMCA safe harbor provisions).
Sec. 1610(c)
Why it matters:This is a significant limitation on copyright owners' ability to seek blocking orders outside of the specific framework established by this bill. It centralizes and standardizes the blocking process.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides clarity and consistency, preventing a patchwork of different blocking orders from various courts and ensuring that the specific due process and safeguards of this chapter are followed.
Case against: Some copyright owners might view this as a restriction on their existing rights to seek broad injunctive relief against infringers, potentially limiting their flexibility in novel infringement scenarios not covered by the new chapter.
Estimated impact: Establishes Chapter 16 as the primary, if not sole, mechanism for obtaining court-ordered site blocking against foreign piracy sites, standardizing the process.