U.S. Representative Darrell Issa has officially introduced a new legislative bill designed to block foreign pirate sites within the United States, reigniting a fierce national debate over digital copyright enforcement and internet governance that has largely remained dormant for over a decade. While the official legislative text has yet to be published by the Government Publishing Office, early drafts of the proposal indicate that both traditional Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Domain Name System (DNS) resolvers would be covered under the mandate. The newly filed measure has already drawn sharp criticism from digital rights advocates, even as it navigates a complex landscape of internal competition among alternative site-blocking initiatives currently making their way through Capitol Hill.
The prospect of blocking foreign pirate sites at the ISP level has been a politically fraught topic in the United States, effectively remaining off the table since the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was shelved in 2012 amid massive public backlash and industry protests. That long-standing status quo shifted in January of last year, when Representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), breathing new life into legislative efforts to curb foreign-hosted online infringement.
That initial proposal set broader site-blocking legislative wheels in motion. By the summer, a group of Senators had launched the Block BEARD legislative draft. Meanwhile, Representative Issa, who serves as the chairman of the House Intellectual Property subcommittee, continued working independently on a draft of his own anti-piracy measure, known as the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA). While Issa’s proposal had been circulated and discussed among various industry stakeholders for months, it was never formally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives until now.
Congressional records show that Representative Issa formally introduced H.R. 10364, describing the legislation broadly as a bill to establish formal legal procedures for blocking access to foreign online locations engaged in copyright piracy, alongside other related purposes. Although no formal short title is currently listed on the official congressional filing, the measure aligns closely with what Issa previously referred to as the American Copyright Protection Act.
A Site Blocking Bill Introduced Without Immediate Text
At the time of writing, the official text of H.R. 10364 is not yet accessible online. Congressional databases indicate that the Government Publishing Office has not yet received the finalized document for publication, and Representative Issa’s congressional office has not yet issued an official press release detailing the final provisions of the introduced text. Inquiries sent to Issa’s office seeking immediate comment and a copy of the legislative language were not immediately answered.
This temporary absence of official text leaves the 2025 discussion draft—a copy of which was previously reviewed and analyzed by digital rights and legal experts—as the clearest available indication of what the final bill may contain. That underlying framework would establish a legal mechanism allowing copyright holders to obtain specialized court orders requiring both standard internet service providers and large DNS resolvers to block domestic user access to designated foreign pirate websites.
Unlike other competing site-blocking proposals that have circulated through Congress, Issa’s earlier draft featured distinct structural elements. Notably, it stipulated that the Judicial Conference would maintain a specialized roster of designated federal judges to hear all site-blocking litigation, while the U.S. Copyright Office would be responsible for publishing an updated public list of active blocking orders.
Furthermore, Issa’s early proposal included unique provisions aimed at mitigating the risk of overblocking. The draft featured a protective mechanism stating that any innocent third party whose legitimate website or online service was wrongly blocked as a result of a copyright holder’s error or overzealous enforcement could pursue financial compensation of up to $250,000. Whether these specific oversight and penalty provisions have been fully retained in the newly introduced House bill remains to be seen once the official legislative text is made public.
Navigating Competing Site Blocking Bills on Capitol Hill
The formal introduction of the bill comes as little surprise to political observers tracking copyright policy. On June 30, Representative Issa told industry publication The Capitol Forum that his explicit intention was to introduce the anti-piracy measure before the chamber departed for a designated district work period. Although that original timeline slipped, the legislative gears have finally turned.
Significantly, Representative Issa is retiring at the end of his current congressional term, leaving a narrow window of just a few months to advance any major legislation through the House of Representatives. While moving a complex copyright bill through a divided Congress in a short timeframe is a difficult challenge, Issa’s measure also faces direct competition from other legislative efforts on Capitol Hill.
There are currently three distinct site-blocking tracks operating simultaneously within the U.S. legislative system. Earlier this year, reports emerged that Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Lofgren were working to merge FADPA and the Block BEARD proposal into a single, unified bicameral bill that would mandate blocking obligations for both ISPs and major public DNS resolvers. Lofgren later publicly confirmed that she was actively negotiating a comprehensive "four corners agreement" alongside Issa and Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Adam Schiff, and Thom Tillis.
Congressional sources previously described the various legislative efforts as separate, uncoordinated tracks, though the degree of alignment remains fluid. If the ACPA serves as the designated House counterpart to a broader consensus compromise, Representative Lofgren’s name would theoretically appear among the measure’s formal cosponsors. If no such grand bargain has been struck, the House now finds itself evaluating multiple competing site-blocking bills, with the Senate version representing a third independent pathway.
Immediate Opposition and Industry Silence
Even before the official text of H.R. 10364 could be published online, digital rights groups and advocacy organizations mobilized to voice immediate and vocal opposition to the legislation. Leading the charge, public interest organization Public Knowledge warned that the new bill effectively conscripts standard broadband providers and network infrastructure operators into acting as private copyright police.
Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, raised serious concerns regarding the technical scope of the proposal. Applying formal blocking orders directly to global DNS resolvers inevitably results in global blocks, she noted, explaining that a single court order could cut off worldwide access to a targeted website based on an expedited legal procedure and a filing by a single individual. Rose cautioned that small businesses, independent creators, and nonprofit organizations face the most severe risks of collateral damage from site-blocking mandates while possessing the fewest legal resources to defend themselves. Pointing to international precedents, she observed that similar overblocking measures implemented in Europe have previously caused significant disruptions to digital infrastructure for hotels, auto repair shops, retail stores, telehealth programs, and even religious institutions.
On the other side of the debate, major copyright holder associations and industry groups have remained relatively quiet following the formal introduction. The Motion Picture Association (MPA)—which previously honored Representative Issa with its Industry Champion Award for his ongoing legislative efforts—had not released an official statement regarding the introduction of H.R. 10364 at the time of publication, and representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
As the legislative process moves forward and the official text of H.R. 10364 becomes publicly available, further details regarding the bill’s enforcement mechanisms, judicial oversight, and potential compromises between rival factions on Capitol Hill are expected to emerge.
Leave a Reply