US Representative Darrell Issa has introduced legislation that would let copyright owners seek court orders requiring internet infrastructure providers to block foreign websites primarily designed for piracy. The proposal would cover broadband providers, domain-name resolution services and virtual private network operators with at least 100,000 monthly US users or subscribers.
The measure, titled the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It would create a two-step process. A copyright owner would first ask a court to declare an online location a foreign piracy site, using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. After securing that declaration, the owner could seek an order directing covered network providers to block access.
Providers would generally receive 14 days to object. Judges could shorten or alter that timetable for time-sensitive material, including unauthorized streams of live events or content distributed within a day of release. Root nameserver operators and top-level domain registries would be outside the requirements, as would Wi-Fi networks offered at places such as libraries, airports, restaurants and shops.
Issa presented faster enforcement as the central goal. Copyright takedown notices can remove individual listings, but rights holders argue that the process is too slow to protect live sports and newly released entertainment. The Motion Picture Association has campaigned for a US site-blocking system and told lawmakers that more than 50 countries already use some form of blocking. Similar proposals have received support from members of both major parties.
Digital-rights and internet-industry groups argue that the mechanism could affect lawful services alongside its intended targets. Public Knowledge described infrastructure-level orders as a broad censorship tool. The Re:Create coalition warned that compelling DNS resolvers and VPNs to filter traffic could harm privacy and disrupt legitimate users or organizations. A joint letter from groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer & Communications Industry Association pointed to overblocking incidents abroad as evidence that implementation is not a solved technical problem.
The proposal places courts between those competing concerns, but its expedited structure is likely to be a focus of debate. Its definition of a qualifying site, the evidence offered by a rights holder and the opportunity for providers or affected operators to object would determine how narrowly orders operate in practice.
The bill is a proposal, not a current blocking mandate. Committee referral begins the legislative process, and the supplied evidence does not establish that either chamber has approved it. Its introduction nevertheless brings the long-running argument over site blocking into a new phase by explicitly naming VPN services and large DNS providers alongside consumer internet companies.
