US site blocking: Two bills would apply to non-US piracy sources but not to US domestic

September 28, 2026

In September 2026, two similar anti-piracy bills were introduced in the US Congress. On September 14, 2026, US Representative Darryl Issa (R-CA) introduced the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 (ACPA) in the US House of Representatives to establish procedures for blocking access to foreign online locations engaged in copyright piracy, and for other purposes. The bill had no co-sponsors in the House or in the US Senate

Ten days later, on Sept 24, the Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property Act (aka the DEFEND IP Act), was introduced in the US House by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and in the US Senate by Sen Thom Tillis (R-NC), to allow copyright owners to ask U.S. courts to order internet providers to block large, foreign-run digital piracy.

Rights advocates applauded both bills, including the Motion Picture Association, RIAA, American Bar Association, CreativeFuture, the Entertainment Software Association, UKIPO, and many other organizations.

Details of the ACPA

HR 10364 calls for US Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block traffic to identified non-US-based Web sites, Domain Name System (DNS) resolution services to stop translating Web address of identified sites into IP addresses, and for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) with 100,000 or more US monthly users to prevent access to blocked sites.

Because root nameserver operators and top-level domain registrars do not store, host or transport media content, they are exempt from blocking orders. Premises-based WiFi networks and smaller VPNs are also exempt.

Details of the DEFEND IP Act

According to a press release by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who introduced the bill in the US House of Representatives, the bill prioritizes due process, threats to free speech, and provides legal safeguards against overly broad enforcement powers that risk harming legitimate websites and the open Internet.

Rights holders can petition Federal courts to designate foreign online providers ads piracy sites and order blocking. Targeting the largest providers, the Act would apply to ISPs with more than 50,000 subscribers and to DNS services with more than $100 million in annual revenue.

Rights-holders must prove that the targeted piracy platform has no purpose beyond copyright infringement and causes the rights-holder ‘irreparable’ harm. Operators targeted by a blocking order may appeal the blocking order within 20 days of being cited.

Comparing the two Acts

Like the ACPA, the DEFEND IP Act exempts ISPs and DNS providers. While the ACPA appears to include all VPN operators in its scope, the DEFEND IP Act limits VPNs to those with more than 100,000 US users.

While both Acts set the duration of blocking orders at one year, only the ACPA specifies implementation periods. Under the ACPA, ISPs, DNS and VPN providers would have 14 to 30 days to implement blocking, which may be expedited to within 24 hours for live broadcasts.

Neither of the Acts identify any specific technical countermeasures against piracy (they specify the ‘what’ but not the ‘how’).

Doesn’t apply to US domestic piracy operators

While it’s general knowledge that hundreds of piracy operations are in service at any give time, neither of these bills made reference to blocking of US-based piracy sites, as-introduced. The same went for the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (HR 791) which was introdued, also by Rep. Lofgren, in January 2025 and assigned to the US House Judiciary Committee.

For example, the now-shuttered Jetflicks claimed to have 183,285 different television episodes, significantly more than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon Prime, or any other licensed streaming service. It operated servers in the United States and Canada, and was characterized as the largest internet piracy case — as measured by the estimated total infringement amount and total number of infringements — ever to go to trial up to mid-2024 when the Jetflicks trial took place.

In another case, the Atlanta office of the FBI seized a number of video game piracy Web sites in mid-2025. Between February 28, 2025, and May 28, 2025, records quoted by the FBI indicated a total of 3.2 million downloads occurred on these sites from the most used download service. These actions resulting in an estimated loss of $170 million.

Action will not be immediate

The ACPA has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. However, the House will be in recess for most of October. The Holidays are approaching, with the House in session for 9 days in November and for 11 in December. As for the elephant in the room, the full US House of Representatives and a third of the US Senate are up for election in November and the makeup of the bodies will be different when the next Congress convenes in January.

Why it matters

These bills are important steps that would add the United States to the growing list of more than 60 countries that already have site-blocking in place.

The bills are not perfect. For example, they do not apply to domestic (US) piracy operators. Also, the response times proposed by the ACPA are far longer than those proposed in Italy and other European countries: ISPs are given 30 minutes to respond to a blocking order; and the DEFEND IP Act is silent on response times.

The US can learn from effective countermeasures that are in effect around the world, to strike an effective balance between the interests of rights-holders and free-speech advocates.