Republican bill would order ISPs, DNS providers, and VPNs to block piracy sites

Congressman Darrell Issa (R‑Calif.) has just put forward a sweeping new bill that would force Internet service providers, DNS resolvers and even VPN services with at least 100,000 U.S. subscribers to block foreign piracy sites. The proposal, dubbed the “American Copyright Protection Act of 2026,” is the latest in a long line of attempts by the Motion Picture Association and bipartisan lawmakers to impose a site‑blocking regime on the open Internet. While the bill’s sponsors argue it will cut off the “clandestine wares” that fund criminal networks, civil‑rights advocates warn it would create a massive censorship apparatus that could cripple legitimate businesses and erode user privacy.

What the bill actually does

Issa’s legislation would give copyright owners the ability to ask a federal court to declare a foreign website a “foreign piracy site” based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” Once a judge signs off, the court could issue a blocking order that applies to ISPs, DNS providers and VPN services that meet the 100,000‑subscriber threshold. The bill explicitly carves out exemptions for root name‑server operators, top‑level domain registries, and public Wi‑Fi in places like airports, libraries and restaurants.

Service providers would have a 14‑day window to object to a blocking order, though judges could shorten that period for “time‑sensitive events” such as live sports broadcasts that are pirated within hours of airing. The language is designed to let courts act quickly, with the goal of making piracy “no longer profitable” for the operators who pop up and sell illegal streams.

Who’s backing the push

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has been the primary driver behind recent site‑blocking proposals. In April 2024, MPA chief Charles Rivkin pledged to work with members of Congress to compel ISPs to block piracy sites. That effort has found allies on both sides of the aisle. In January 2025, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti‑Digital Piracy Act, and in July 2025 a bipartisan group of senators sponsored the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act. Senators Chris Coons (D‑Del.) and Thom Tillis (R‑N.C.) framed the issue as a massive theft of “tens of billions of dollars” and a threat to “hundreds of thousands of jobs” in the creative economy.

Issa, who is set to retire at the end of 2026, positioned himself as the latest champion of that agenda, arguing that the current notice‑and‑takedown process under the DMCA is too slow to stop real‑time piracy of live sports and other high‑value content.

Opposition’s core concerns

Consumer‑rights groups and tech‑policy advocates see the bill as a dangerous expansion of government‑mandated censorship. Meredith Rose of Public Knowledge warned that the proposal would force “any service provider, from residential broadband providers to global DNS resolvers, to disrupt traffic from targeted websites simply accused of copyright infringement.” She stressed that the process would allow a single plaintiff to shut down a site worldwide with a court declaration, a power she called “ripe for abuse.”

Re:Create, a coalition of digital‑rights organizations, echoed those fears. Executive Director Brandon Butler warned that forcing infrastructure providers to filter traffic threatens user privacy and could cause “catastrophic collateral damage to the open web.” He noted that the fast‑track scheme sidesteps existing legal channels and invites “copyright abuse,” potentially harming small businesses, nonprofits and ordinary Internet users.

International precedents and pitfalls

Proponents point to more than fifty countries that have already adopted site‑blocking measures, arguing the United States is lagging behind its allies. However, critics highlight the messy outcomes observed abroad. A letter from the Computer & Communications Industry Association cited Spain’s experience, where overblocking knocked out payment processors and a national health‑care provider, sparking public backlash and grassroots opposition. The same letter warned that “the idea that site blocking is a ‘solved problem,’ politically or technologically, is a myth.”

These international examples underscore a pattern: while blocking can disrupt some piracy operations, it also generates widespread collateral damage and drives criminals to more sophisticated evasion tactics. The lesson, according to opponents, is that a blunt‑force approach rarely solves the underlying problem.

Practical challenges of enforcement

Even if the bill clears Congress, enforcing it against VPN providers could prove tricky. VPNs can route traffic through servers outside U.S. jurisdiction, making court orders difficult to implement. Nonetheless, the bill’s focus on broadband and DNS providers would likely render many piracy sites inaccessible to the average consumer, at least temporarily.

Rose cautioned that once DNS resolvers are compelled to block, “one court can cut off access to a website globally, based on a single individual’s filing and an expedited procedure.” That concentration of power raises the specter of overreach, especially if the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is applied loosely.

What’s next for the legislation

Issa’s proposal has already been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will face scrutiny from both privacy advocates and industry lobbyists. As chair of a subcommittee on courts, intellectual property, artificial intelligence and the Internet, Issa is well‑positioned to shepherd the bill through the legislative process, but he will need to navigate a crowded field of competing bills and a growing chorus of opposition.

The coming weeks will likely see intensified lobbying from the MPA and its allies, counter‑lobbying from Public Knowledge, Re:Create and the broader tech community, and perhaps a few high‑profile hearings on the balance between copyright enforcement and free‑speech protections. If the bill survives, it could reshape the architecture of the American Internet, forcing network operators to become de‑facto enforcers of copyright law—a shift that would have profound implications for user privacy, competition and the open web.

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Ars Technica; arstechnica.com; Global1.News (18 September 2026).

By Jessica Ali, Staff Writer