U.S. Representative Darrell Issa has officially introduced a new legislative measure designed to block foreign pirate websites within the United States, reigniting a high-stakes debate over online copyright enforcement, internet infrastructure, and digital freedom that has largely remained dormant since the controversial SOPA battles of over a decade ago.
While the official legislative text has not yet been published by the Government Publishing Office, an early discussion draft provides key insights into the framework. According to these earlier iterations, the proposed legislation targets both traditional Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Domain Name System (DNS) resolvers, compelling network operators to cut off domestic access to international copyright-infringing platforms upon receiving a court order.
The introduction of the bill has already drawn swift criticism from digital rights organizations, who argue that the measures threaten fundamental internet architecture and small business operations. Furthermore, the proposal enters a crowded legislative landscape on Capitol Hill, where competing site-blocking initiatives are currently being negotiated among lawmakers, adding an extra layer of complexity to its potential path toward becoming law.
A Decades-Long Battle Over ISP-Level Blocking
The prospect of blocking foreign pirate sites at the ISP level has been a politically fraught topic in the United States for nearly fifteen years. Such measures were effectively taken off the table following the massive public and industry backlash that led to the shelving of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in 2012. For years, policymakers and copyright holders struggled to find a legislative compromise that could address rampant offshore digital piracy without imposing overly broad censorship or breaking core internet protocols.
That dynamic shifted in January of last year, when U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), setting the wheels in motion for a renewed push toward site-blocking legislation. Building on that momentum, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the Block BEARD site-blocking draft last summer. Meanwhile, Representative Issa—who currently serves as the chair of the House Intellectual Property subcommittee—continued developing his own alternative approach, which culminated in the drafting of the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA).
Although Issa’s bill had been circulated among interested stakeholders for months as a draft, it had not been formally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives until now. Congressional records confirm that Issa has officially introduced H.R. 10364, formally described as a bill to establish formal legal procedures for blocking access to foreign online locations engaged in copyright piracy, alongside other related provisions. While the formal bill text does not currently list a specific short title, Issa has previously referred to the initiative as the American Copyright Protection Act.
A Site Blocking Bill Without Immediately Available Text
As of publication, the exact legislative text of H.R. 10364 remains offline. Congressional documentation indicates that the Government Publishing Office has not yet received the official copy, and Representative Issa’s office has not yet issued a formal press release detailing the final provisions of the introduced bill. Inquiries sent to Issa’s office requesting comment and an advance copy of the legislative text did not receive an immediate response.
Consequently, legal experts and industry observers must rely on the 2025 discussion draft of the ACPA—which was previously reviewed by independent analysts—as the primary indicator of the bill’s mechanics. Under that proposed framework, copyright holders would be granted the legal mechanism to obtain court orders requiring both ISPs and major DNS resolvers to block domestic traffic heading toward designated foreign pirate websites.
Unlike several competing proposals, Issa’s early draft introduced unique structural safeguards designed to streamline judicial handling and address potential executive overreach. The proposal suggested that the Judicial Conference would maintain a specialized roster of designated judges specifically assigned to hear all site-blocking cases, while the U.S. Copyright Office would be tasked with publishing and maintaining an official directory of active blocking orders.
Crucially, Issa’s early draft attempted to address the contentious issue of overblocking by incorporating a specific liability provision. The text included a mechanism stating that any innocent third party whose legitimate website was mistakenly blocked as a result of a rightsholder’s error or negligence could pursue compensation of up to $250,000. It remains unconfirmed whether these specific accountability provisions, or the specialized judicial roster, survived the final drafting process prior to the bill’s official introduction. Observers expect to review the final language once it is formally published by Congress.
Competing Site-Blocking Bills on Capitol Hill
The formal introduction of H.R. 10364 comes as little surprise to political insiders. In late June, Issa indicated during an interview with The Capitol Forum that his intention was to introduce the anti-piracy legislation before Congress entered a scheduled district work period. Although that original timeline slipped, the formal introduction arrives at a critical juncture.
With Issa retiring at the end of his current congressional term, time is severely limited for any major intellectual property bill to navigate the legislative process and clear both chambers of Congress. Compounding the challenge is the existence of multiple competing site-blocking initiatives currently winding their way through the House and Senate.
Earlier this year, discussions emerged regarding a unified legislative effort to merge previous proposals, such as FADPA and the Block BEARD act, into a single bicameral bill that would jointly bind ISPs and large DNS resolvers. Representative Lofgren subsequently confirmed that she was engaged in complex negotiations regarding a multi-party consensus agreement involving Issa, as well as Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Adam Schiff, and Thom Tillis.
Whether H.R. 10364 represents the designated House vehicle for this broader consensus remains to be seen. If the bill serves as the agreed-upon House counterpart to a unified bicameral compromise, Lofgren’s name would be expected to appear among the bill’s formal cosponsors. If no such agreement has been finalized, the House currently finds itself considering distinct blocking bills, running parallel to the separate Senate version, setting up potential legislative friction before the term concludes.
Early Opposition and Industry Silence
Even before the formal legislative text was made available online, digital advocacy groups mobilized to register opposition to the bill. Public Knowledge, a prominent digital rights and consumer advocacy organization, issued a stark warning that the legislation effectively transforms broadband internet providers into private copyright enforcement agents.
Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, expressed deep concern over the technical mechanics of the proposed framework, particularly regarding the involvement of DNS resolvers. Applying blocking orders to global DNS resolvers can inadvertently trigger broad, international blocks, she argued. Rose pointed out that a single court order, initiated by an individual filing under an expedited procedure, could effectively cut off access to a website globally.
Furthermore, Public Knowledge highlighted the heightened risks facing smaller entities. Small businesses and non-profit organizations face the greatest risks of collateral damage from site-blocking mandates while possessing the fewest legal resources to fight back, according to the advocacy group. Rose noted that similar overblocking measures implemented in Europe have occasionally disrupted critical digital infrastructure for hotels, automotive repair shops, retail stores, telehealth services, and even religious institutions.
Meanwhile, major entertainment industry groups and rightsholders have maintained a quieter public posture following the bill’s introduction. The Motion Picture Association (MPA), which previously honored Representative Issa with its Industry Champion Award for his ongoing anti-piracy efforts, had not issued a formal statement on the introduction of H.R. 10364 as of publication. Requests for comment sent to the organization were not immediately answered.
As Congress awaits the formal publication of the bill text and further details regarding its specific mechanisms, the debate over balancing robust intellectual property protection with open internet access and preventative safeguards against overblocking continues to intensify on Capitol Hill.