Issa Bill Would Allow U.S. Courts to Order VPNs and ISPs to Block Foreign Piracy Sites

A House bill introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa would create a new federal court process for blocking access in the United States to foreign websites accused of copyright infringement, and it would explicitly allow those orders to reach virtual private network providers.

The measure, H.R. 10364, the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026, was introduced Sept. 14 by Issa, a California Republican, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. If enacted, it would add a new chapter to U.S. copyright law laying out how courts could designate a site as a “foreign piracy site” and then order intermediaries to cut off access for U.S. users.

That last point marks a key shift from a similar proposal introduced last year. Unlike the 2025 Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act, Issa’s bill expressly includes VPNs in its definition of covered “service providers,” alongside broadband providers and providers of domain name resolution services, the systems that translate web addresses into the numerical locations computers use to find sites online. The bill excludes root nameserver operators and top-level domain registries.

Under the proposal, the process would unfold in two steps. First, a copyright owner could ask a federal court to declare an online location outside the United States a foreign piracy site. The court would be required to issue that designation if the copyright owner proved the required elements by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard generally used in civil cases.

Second, after that designation, the court could issue blocking orders directed at named service providers. Each provider named in an order would have to take “all commercially reasonable steps” to prevent users in the United States from accessing the site. Providers would have at least 14 days and no more than 30 days after notice to comply. An initial blocking order would expire no later than 12 months after it was issued, though a court could extend or renew it.

The bill does not sweep in every internet access provider. It excludes providers serving fewer than 100,000 monthly U.S. users or subscribers. It also excludes premises operators that resell internet access, including airports, libraries, restaurants and universities.

The proposal includes some procedural protections for both providers and site operators. Named providers would have to receive notice and an opportunity to respond. A copyright owner seeking an order would have to post a bond sufficient to cover costs and damages if a provider were wrongfully enjoined. Site operators would have a right to appear and contest a case, and they could later seek to rescind a foreign piracy site designation.

Still, the process would not depend on the operator showing up in court. A site could be designated even if its operator did not appear. In that situation, a court could appoint a special master to help review the matter, but the bill makes that optional, not mandatory. The measure also provides liability protections for providers acting in good-faith compliance with an order.

Issa’s bill also broadens the kinds of sites that could qualify compared with last year’s proposal. The 2025 bill targeted sites with “no commercially significant purpose or use” other than infringement. The new bill uses a looser standard, covering sites with “only limited commercially significant purpose or use” beyond infringement.

The debate revives a long-running fight in Congress over court-ordered site blocking. The best-known earlier flashpoint was the collapse of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act in 2012 after opposition from internet companies, civil liberties groups and online users.

Supporters say the bill is a targeted judicial tool aimed at foreign piracy operations. In a Sept. 23 press release, Issa said, “The American Copyright Protection Act establishes the tools to fight back, ensure due process, and safeguard legitimate online services.” Motion Picture Association Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin, in the same release, called it “a long overdue judicial site blocking framework.”

Critics say the bill could go too far by enabling overblocking of lawful material and by reaching services tied to privacy and internet access. Meredith Rose of Public Knowledge said in a Sept. 15 statement, “Congress and its entertainment industry allies have decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also opposed the measure, arguing that including VPNs raises additional concerns about internet infrastructure and privacy.