A new bill introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa aims to give copyright holders expanded powers to block US users from accessing foreign websites accused of piracy, explicitly including VPN providers in the enforcement mechanism and broadening the criteria for site blocking.
- ACPA expands site-blocking to include VPN providers and broadens piracy site definitions.
- Procedural safeguards exist but initial site labeling can occur without site operators’ defense.
- Critics warn of collateral damage and risks to internet openness and user rights.
What happened
Congressman Darrell Issa introduced the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA), a bill designed to enable copyright owners to block US users from accessing foreign websites accused of copyright infringement. The bill allows a court to label a foreign site as a 'foreign piracy site,' triggering a legal requirement for internet service providers, DNS providers, and notably VPN services to take steps to block access for users in the United States.
This legislation differs from last year’s site-blocking proposals by explicitly including VPN providers alongside ISPs and DNS services, removing prior protections that exempted VPN-only services or encrypted DNS providers. The bill also broadens the scope by including sites with even limited legitimate commercial activity if they predominantly engage in copyright infringement, expanding the range of sites that could be blocked.
Why it matters
The ACPA could have significant impacts on internet infrastructure and user privacy, as it obligates VPN providers—an essential tool for privacy, security, and censorship circumvention—to restrict access. This sets a precedent where a broad array of intermediaries could be compelled to enforce content blocking, potentially undermining internet neutrality and user rights to open access.
Although the bill introduces procedural protections like notice to service providers, court consideration of harm, and compensation mechanisms for wrongful blocking, the fundamental issue of due process remains troubling. The initial designation of a site as a piracy site can occur without the accused site's legal representation or even participation, increasing the risk of erroneous or overbroad blocking that could affect lawful content and users' access to information.
What to watch next
Stakeholders across digital rights, privacy advocacy, and technology sectors will be closely monitoring the bill's progress, particularly how Congress responds to concerns about overreach and due process. Amendments or changes could be proposed to restore VPN protections or improve procedural fairness before any enactment.
Additionally, the implementation details—such as what constitutes 'commercially reasonable steps' for blocking and the role of courts in overseeing enforcement—will be critical to watch. The technology community will also observe how blocking might impact technical infrastructure, especially given historical examples from other countries where site-blocking led to widespread collateral damage to lawful websites.