Published on Jun 30, 2026
Representative Darrell Issa, R-CA, said he plans to introduce a bill this week that would curb online piracy by blocking foreign websites violating U.S. copyright laws—the latest sign that a yearslong bipartisan effort behind this type of legislation is regaining momentum. “Our intention is to introduce it this week before we go on this district […]
Representative Darrell Issa, R-CA, said he plans to introduce a bill this week that would curb online piracy by blocking foreign websites violating U.S. copyright laws—the latest sign that a yearslong bipartisan effort behind this type of legislation is regaining momentum.
“Our intention is to introduce it this week before we go on this district work period,” the lawmaker said in an interview. “We’re trying to have a process that cleans up this and goes after bad actors.”
Issa is retiring at the end of his term and has only a limited amount of time to pass the legislation, which has been a long-term goal of his.
A member of Issa’s staff and Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, who’s sponsoring a separate anti-piracy bill, said that Congress could pass some version of the legislation this year. The Issa staff member referred to a potential “consensus solution.”
“I expect Rep. Issa’s legislation to best represent the House’s contribution,” the staff member said in an email.
Lofgren told The Capitol Forum that she’s negotiating with Issa as well as Senators Marsha Blackburn, R-TN; Chris Coons, D-DE; Adam Schiff D-CA; and Thom Tillis, R-NC, to support her bill, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA).
The Democratic House lawmaker said she’s creating a “four corners agreement”—a legislative framework that Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate can support. The final bill might have a different title but will include the “most essential parts” of FADPA, Lofgren added in an email.
“I’m hopeful that we can still get this across the finish line before the end of this Congress,” Lofgren said in an email.
Anti-piracy legislation pits the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which supports it as an effective way to stop consumers from illegally accessing movies and other copyrighted content, against opponents such as tech companies and free speech advocates, who have argued that the legislation’s language is overly broad and could be used to censor legitimate information on the internet. These concerns have defeated previous anti-piracy bills that would block websites.
Issa said that his bill would have a name similar to the American Copyright Protection Act—a measure he considered introducing last year. Issa today didn’t provide details of his legislation.
Lofgren’s bill, which she introduced in January 2025, would allow U.S. copyright holders to seek court orders requiring internet service providers operating in the U.S. to block foreign websites primarily providing content that infringes the material’s copyright. The ISPs could restrict access to the websites through measures such as DNS filtering, IP blocking or URL routing.
Blackburn, Coons, Schiff and Tillis didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Yearslong legislative push. The roots of site-blocking legislation go back to the early 2010s with the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
PIPA, introduced in 2011, would have created a legal process for courts to order intermediaries to stop providing services to foreign websites engaged in copyright infringement. SOPA, which came a year later, was another attempt to combat online copyright infringement, particularly by foreign websites distributing pirated entertainment content and other products.
The two bills failed amid opposition from technology companies and internet free-speech advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
But supporters of these efforts didn’t give up. Last year, Senators Blackburn, Coons, Schiff and Tillis unveiled the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act, or BEARD Act, which would give copyright owners the authority to seek federal court orders to block foreign piracy operations. The BEARD Act is different in that in addition to ISPs, it would make search engines, social media networks and other digital platform subject to the court orders. The legislation continues to languish without action by Congress.
The debate over website-blocking legislation comes after the Supreme Court’s March decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The court ruled unanimously that ISPs can’t be held liable for users’ copyright infringement unless the provider intentionally induces or tailors its services for piracy. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the ISP’s mere knowledge of bad actors on its network isn’t enough for the service to be held liable. To meet that bar, ISPs must deliberately encourage or intend the infringement to occur.
It’s possible that the court’s decision might have helped build momentum for the anti-piracy push, said one supporter of these efforts.
“The ISPs’ strongest argument was potential liability, and now that is taken away,” said the supporter, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations over the bills.
The MPA, which has long supported site-blocking legislation, has a lobbyist working against piracy, sources familiar with the matter said. MPA Chair and CEO Charlie Rivkin met near the end of last Congress with Lofgren, a longtime Google supporter, to develop legislation. Lofgren was concerned about protecting the internet, one of the sources said.
The bill’s opponents have argued that even a narrowly targeted site-blocking mechanism could have unintended consequences.
Brandon Butler, a copyright lawyer and executive director at Re:Create, a coalition of free-speech groups and tech companies focused on copyright and internet policy, said that the bill could be used to ban legitimate websites.
“We will find very quickly that sure enough you can’t do this without blocking lawful websites, as well,” Butler said.
Re:Create’s coalition includes the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts among its members Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOG) and Cloudflare (NET) as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Library Association.
However, Kevin Madigan, senior vice president of policy and government affairs at the Copyright Alliance, a supporter of FADPA, said that he’s “hopeful” that the bill can overcome objections that have killed similar legislation in the past. The board of the alliance, which represents copyright holders’ interests, includes executives from major studios, tech companies and industry trade groups.
FADPA’s drafters “really go out of their way to include these provisions that would ensure that there are safeguards against things like over blocking,” Madigan said.
