PRIA Logo™
119-hr-791119th Congress

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act

Sponsored By: Representative Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

Introduced

Summary

Court-ordered blocking of foreign infringing websites. This bill would create a court-centered process that lets copyright owners or exclusive licensees ask U.S. courts for preliminary and full blocking orders to make large broadband and public DNS providers prevent access to specified foreign sites, with expedited, ex parte options for imminent live-event piracy.

Show full summary
  • Copyright owners and exclusive licensees could seek orders by proving likely infringement and irreparable harm. Orders generally last 12 months and can be extended for additional 12-month periods.
  • Covered service providers include broadband firms with 100,000+ subscribers and public domain name resolution providers with over $100 million in annual revenue. Courts must require technically feasible measures, may shift reasonable compliance costs to petitioners, and grant immunity for good-faith compliance.
  • The court must try to protect lawful content and the public interest when crafting orders. Compliance deadlines are generally 15 days after service and can be as fast as 7 days for imminent live events.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

5 provisions identified: 3 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.

Immunity for providers who comply

If enacted, service providers that a court finds in compliance with a blocking order would be protected from lawsuits over implementing those measures. Providers acting in good faith could not be sued even if the identified site is later found not to meet the criteria. A court order naming a provider generally could not be used as evidence of copyright infringement, and being named would not by itself remove other statutory protections.

Court orders to block access

If enacted, a petitioner with a preliminary order could ask a court to require covered service providers to take reasonable, technically feasible steps to stop users reaching the foreign site. Courts must find the steps will not block lawful content or unduly burden the provider. Non‑live orders must be implemented in 15 days (20 days for good cause). Live‑event orders must be implemented within 7 days and expire 48 hours after the event. Most orders expire 12 months. Petitioners can later ask to add providers or new domain/IP identifiers; providers get notice and can oppose.

Which providers must follow orders

If enacted, the bill would say which internet and DNS companies are covered. A 'broadband provider' must serve 100,000 or more subscribers. Public DNS providers are covered only if revenue exceeds $100 million. Providers that use only encrypted DNS, only provide VPN services, or only run premises Wi‑Fi (like a coffee shop or library) are excluded. Courts could not order specific technical fixes or require blocking VPNs. Providers can pause measures to investigate overblocking. Providers may ask courts to make the petitioner pay reasonable marginal implementation costs, excluding capital and attorney fees.

Court petition to block foreign sites

If enacted, a copyright owner or exclusive licensee could ask a U.S. court for a quick order against a foreign website. Petitions must name the site by IP, domain, or similar and try service under Rule 4. The petitioner must say the operator is outside the U.S. or cannot be located here. Courts could act after opposition and a 14‑day reply or faster for live events. The operator has 30 days to appear or the court may appoint a master.

Courts must post blocking orders

If enacted, courts issuing blocking orders would have to post the order and key details on a public website without undue delay. Posts must include the petitioner name, domain names and IP addresses, issue date, expiration date, and a short summary of findings. Courts could redact information if posting would make the order ineffective or create serious security or law‑enforcement risks.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

CA • D

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation