PROTECT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Patronis, Jimmy [R-FL-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
The PROTECT Act would eliminate the legal shield that protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content and their content moderation practices, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for the internet.
What it actually does
This bill repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently provides liability protection to online platforms for third-party content and for their content moderation decisions. It also makes numerous conforming amendments across various federal statutes to remove references to Section 230 and update definitions of "interactive computer service" and "Internet" where necessary.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that Section 230 has allowed tech companies to avoid accountability for harmful content, including misinformation, hate speech, and illegal activities, while simultaneously engaging in biased content moderation. Repealing it would force platforms to take greater responsibility for content on their sites, fostering a safer and more trustworthy online environment for consumers.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that repealing Section 230 would stifle free speech online, leading platforms to over-moderate content out of fear of lawsuits or to remove all moderation, resulting in a flood of harmful material. They argue it would disproportionately harm smaller platforms and startups that lack the resources to defend against constant litigation, consolidating power among larger tech companies.
The bill is very short and straightforward to read, but its implications are vast and complex, requiring significant background knowledge to fully appreciate.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Communications Act Section 230
This core provision completely eliminates Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 currently grants interactive computer services immunity from liability for content posted by third parties and protects them from liability for their good-faith efforts to moderate "objectionable" content. Its repeal means platforms could be held liable for user-generated content and their moderation decisions under various state and federal laws.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that removing Section 230 will force platforms to be more responsible, leading to less harmful content, misinformation, and illegal activity online. It would restore accountability to tech giants who have grown too powerful.
Critics contend
Critics argue that this repeal would lead to an explosion of lawsuits against platforms, forcing them to either remove vast amounts of user content (chilling free speech) or cease moderation entirely (leading to more harmful content), ultimately harming smaller platforms and fostering consolidation.
Tradeoffs
The bill seeks to balance platform accountability with free speech protections and the operational viability of online services. The tension lies between holding platforms responsible for content and enabling them to host diverse user-generated content without undue legal risk.
Section 2(b)(1)
Conforming Amendments to Communications Act of 1934
This section amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934. It strikes subparagraph (D) from subsection (h)(1) and redefines "interactive computer service" in subsection (i) to mean "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions." It also removes a reference to Section 230 in Section 231(b)(4).
Section 2(b)(2)
Conforming Amendments to Trademark Act of 1946
This amendment updates the definition of "Internet" in Section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946. It replaces the reference to Section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 with a new definition: "the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks." This ensures the Trademark Act continues to have a functional definition of the Internet.
Section 2(b)(4)
Updates to definitions and liability exclusions in criminal statutes
This section makes several changes to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which deals with crimes and criminal procedure. It updates references to "interactive computer service" in sections 1462, 1465, and 2421A to point to the new definition in Section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934. Crucially, it removes language in Section 2257(h)(2)(B)(v) and the Controlled Substances Act (Section 2(b)(5)) that previously stated that deleting certain communications consistent with Section 230(c) would not constitute "selection or alteration of the content of the communication." This removal could potentially alter how platforms are viewed in relation to content in criminal contexts.
These subsections strike language that previously stated that deleting a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with Section 230(c) would not constitute "selection or alteration of the content of the communication." This language was a specific protection for platforms moderating content related to child exploitation (18 U.S.C. 2257) and controlled substances (21 U.S.C. 841).
Section 2(b)(4)(C) and Section 2(b)(5)
Why it matters:This is a necessary technical consequence of repealing Section 230, ensuring consistency across the U.S. Code. It's standard legislative practice to update cross-references and dependent clauses.
Case for: Supporters argue that this ensures platforms cannot claim Section 230 immunity when dealing with content related to serious crimes, making them more accountable for facilitating such activities.
Case against: Critics might argue that without this explicit exclusion, platforms could face increased legal ambiguity or pressure in moderating content related to these sensitive areas, potentially leading to over-removal or under-removal of content to avoid liability.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for platforms that host user-generated content related to child exploitation or controlled substances, increasing their legal exposure.