Congress Advances Bipartisan Site-Blocking Legislation to Combat Online Piracy After Supreme Court Ruling

In a decisive move to curb the rising tide of online piracy, bipartisan lawmakers in Congress are quietly advancing a unified site-blocking bill that would compel internet service providers (ISPs) and large domain name system (DNS) providers to block access to foreign pirate websites. The legislative push, spearheaded by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), follows a landmark Supreme Court decision last month that reshaped the legal landscape for holding ISPs accountable for their users' copyright infringement. With the court ruling in favor of Cox Communications—effectively narrowing the circumstances under which ISPs can be held liable—the urgency for proactive measures has intensified, prompting lawmakers to revisit and refine proposals that had previously stalled in Congress.

Why the Supreme Court’s Cox Decision Pushed Site-Blocking to the Forefront

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a $1 billion piracy liability verdict against Cox Communications sent shockwaves through both the tech and entertainment industries. In a 8-1 ruling, the Court affirmed that ISPs cannot be held vicariously liable for the pirating activities of their subscribers unless they actively induce infringement or provide services with no substantial non-infringing uses—conditions widely seen as nearly impossible to meet. Writing in concurrence, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the implications: *“The majority’s decision permits ISPs to sell an internet connection to every single infringer who wants one without fear of liability and without lifting a finger to prevent infringement.”*

For rights holders, including major music and film studios, the ruling was a significant setback. It closed a longstanding legal pathway to hold ISPs accountable for facilitating mass copyright infringement, particularly on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. The decision also underscored the limitations of relying solely on litigation to combat piracy at scale. As a result, lawmakers and industry advocates have pivoted toward legislative solutions that shift the burden from litigation to prevention—through mandatory site-blocking protocols enforced by ISPs and DNS providers.

A Bicameral Path Forward: The Lofgren-Tillis Site-Blocking Compromise

For years, site-blocking legislation in the U.S. has faced stiff opposition from both ISPs and tech giants, who argue that such mandates would impose undue compliance costs, stifle innovation, and raise significant free speech and due process concerns. However, the shifting legal climate after the Cox decision has catalyzed bipartisan cooperation between Representative Zoe Lofgren and Senator Thom Tillis, both of whom previously opposed expansive anti-piracy measures like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2012.

From Fragmented Proposals to a Unified Bill

In January 2025, Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in the House, a bill that proposed targeting foreign pirate websites by compelling ISPs and large DNS providers to block access. A few months later, Senator Tillis circulated a draft of the Blocking Extraterritorial Activity to Reduce Digital (BEARD) Piracy Act, with bipartisan co-sponsorship from Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Adam Schiff (D-CA). Initially, the two efforts operated independently—until behind-the-scenes negotiations began to merge them into a single, cohesive legislative package.

Sources familiar with the negotiations, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of ongoing discussions, confirmed that Lofgren and Tillis have been working together to harmonize the two bills. While no draft text has been publicly released, the unified proposal is expected to require ISPs and large DNS resolvers—defined as those generating more than $100 million in annual revenue—to block access to foreign sites deemed to be primarily dedicated to piracy. Under FADPA, DNS providers meeting this revenue threshold would be included; Tillis’s Block BEARD Act does not explicitly name DNS providers but relies on the broad definition of a “service provider” under Section 512(k)(1)(A) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which could capture major players like Google Public DNS and Cloudflare.

The Role of DNS Providers: A Novel but Contentious Expansion

The inclusion of DNS providers represents a significant departure from previous U.S. anti-piracy efforts and aligns the proposed legislation with international site-blocking models used in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Most countries do not explicitly include DNS resolvers in their blocking regimes, though they are often indirectly affected when ISPs are required to filter traffic at the network level. By directly targeting DNS providers, the proposed U.S. law would create a two-tiered enforcement system: ISPs would block access at the network level, while DNS providers would be required to refuse resolution of pirate domains.

This approach has drawn strong opposition from major tech companies. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), which represents industry heavyweights such as Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, launched its “DNS at Risk” campaign last year to warn policymakers and the public about the potential unintended consequences of DNS blocking. These concerns include the risk of overblocking, collateral damage to legitimate websites, and the erosion of user privacy through DNS logging and filtering.

Neither Google nor Cloudflare responded to requests for comment from TorrentFreak before publication. However, in international contexts, both companies have actively opposed site-blocking mandates, including in France where they challenged DNS-based blocking orders. Their likely resistance in the U.S. underscores the contentious nature of the legislative push and the potential for future legal battles if the bill becomes law.

Parallel Efforts: Representative Issa’s Alternative Approach

While the Lofgren-Tillis collaboration marks the most visible path forward, a separate proposal is also gaining traction in the House. Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, has been circulating a draft of the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) for over a year. Unlike the Lofgren-Tillis bill, which relies on standard district court jurisdiction, Issa’s ACPA proposes a streamlined judicial process: it would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to designate a roster of specialized judges to hear all piracy-blocking cases.

The ACPA also introduces a robust safeguard against overblocking. If a legitimate website is erroneously blocked due to a copyright owner’s error, the affected third party could seek compensation of up to $250,000 from the rightsholder. This provision reflects growing concerns about the collateral damage that site-blocking can cause, particularly when copyright trolls or overzealous rights holders exploit the system. While the ACPA and the Lofgren-Tillis bill share a common goal—combating piracy—they differ in their mechanisms, timelines, and potential for bipartisan compromise. Whether they will eventually converge remains uncertain, though sources indicate that earlier discussions involved largely uncoordinated tracks.

The SOPA Shadow: Lofgren’s Evolving Stance on Anti-Piracy Legislation

One of the most notable aspects of the current legislative push is the shift in Representative Zoe Lofgren’s position. In 2012, she was one of the most vocal opponents of SOPA, warning that its expansive blocking provisions threatened the open internet, stifled free speech, and risked collateral damage to legitimate websites. Over a decade later, Lofgren has framed her FADPA proposal as a “smart, targeted approach” that balances the need to combat piracy with due process and free speech protections. She argues that her bill avoids the pitfalls of SOPA by focusing narrowly on foreign pirate sites and incorporating judicial oversight.

Critics, however, argue that the bill still represents a slippery slope. Digital rights advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have long warned that site-blocking regimes can be abused, particularly in authoritarian regimes where blocking is used to suppress dissent. While Lofgren’s bill includes provisions to limit blocking to foreign sites and requires court orders, opponents question whether such safeguards are sufficient to prevent mission creep. The debate echoes concerns raised during the SOPA protests, which saw widespread public backlash and led to the bill’s withdrawal. Today, however, the public discourse appears quieter—partly because the legislative process is still in early stages and partly because site-blocking has become more normalized globally.

Industry Divides: Rights Holders Push for Action, Consumer Advocates Warn of Risks

The site-blocking push has drawn strong support from major rights holder organizations, including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association (MPA), and Creative Future. These groups argue that piracy continues to cost the U.S. economy billions annually, undermining creative industries and stifling innovation. According to a 2023 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, online piracy costs the U.S. economy between $29.2 billion and $71 billion in lost revenue each year, while also threatening jobs in the entertainment sector.

On the opposing side, consumer advocacy groups and digital rights organizations argue that site-blocking is an ineffective and disproportionate response to piracy. They point to studies showing that blocking often leads to users circumventing restrictions through virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy servers, while legitimate websites and services are frequently caught in the crossfire. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also raised concerns about the potential for censorship and the lack of robust due process protections in the proposed legislation.

Political Timelines and Potential Pathways for the Bill

The legislative timeline for the Lofgren-Tillis bill remains uncertain, but insiders suggest it could be introduced before Senator Tillis’s term ends in January 2027. Given Tillis’s decision not to seek reelection, the clock is ticking, creating added urgency for the bill’s proponents. One potential pathway for advancement is attaching the legislation to an omnibus spending bill—a common tactic in Congress to expedite controversial measures. However, this remains speculative, and the bill could also emerge as standalone legislation or blend with Issa’s ACPA proposal in a future compromise.

Key Takeaways: What to Watch as the Bill Develops

• A bipartisan coalition led by Rep. Lofgren and Sen. Tillis is merging two site-blocking proposals into a unified bill following a Supreme Court ruling that limited ISP liability for user piracy.
• The proposed legislation would require ISPs and large DNS providers (over $100M annual revenue) to block foreign pirate sites, marking a significant expansion of U.S. anti-piracy enforcement.
• Digital rights advocates and tech giants like Google and Cloudflare oppose DNS provider inclusion, citing risks of overblocking, privacy concerns, and collateral damage to legitimate services.
• Representative Issa’s alternative bill (ACPA) proposes a specialized judicial process and compensation for erroneously blocked sites, reflecting growing concerns about overblocking.
• The bill’s timeline is tight due to Sen. Tillis’s retirement in 2027, potentially accelerating its introduction or attachment to broader must-pass legislation.

What Happens Next? Potential Outcomes and Legal Battles

As lawmakers refine the details of the site-blocking bill, the tech and entertainment industries are bracing for a new round of lobbying, legal challenges, and public debate. If the bill advances, it is all but certain to face scrutiny from digital rights groups, who may file lawsuits alleging violations of the First Amendment or the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. Tech companies could challenge the inclusion of DNS providers on grounds that it exceeds the scope of the DMCA and intrudes on internet infrastructure functions traditionally outside government regulation.

Meanwhile, rights holders are likely to push for rapid implementation, arguing that delay only emboldens pirates and exacerbates economic harm. The outcome of this legislative effort could redefine the balance between copyright enforcement and internet freedom in the U.S., setting a precedent for future anti-piracy measures. Whether the bill succeeds in its current form or undergoes significant revision, one thing is clear: the landscape of online piracy enforcement is poised for dramatic change.

Conclusion: A Turning Point in Online Piracy Enforcement

The push for site-blocking legislation represents a pivotal moment in the decades-long battle against online piracy. After years of relying on litigation that yielded mixed results, Congress is now turning to a more proactive, infrastructure-level approach. While the details of the Lofgren-Tillis bill and its potential merger with Issa’s ACPA proposal remain fluid, the bipartisan momentum is undeniable. As the Supreme Court’s Cox decision demonstrated, the legal avenues for holding ISPs liable are narrowing. For rights holders, the stakes could not be higher—and for internet users and tech companies, the risks of unintended consequences loom large. The coming months will reveal whether Congress can craft a balanced solution or whether the fight over site-blocking will once again ignite the kind of public and political firestorm last seen during the SOPA debates.

Frequently Asked Questions