IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS—DEFEND IP legislation would target foreign piracy through judicial blocking orders, (Oct 5, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A bipartisan proposal would give copyright owners a new judicial remedy against large-scale foreign piracy sites by requiring certain internet providers to prevent U.S. users from accessing sites designated for blocking.

Copyright owners could seek federal orders targeting foreign websites under the newly introduced Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act of 2026. After a site receives a piracy designation, certain broadband and domain-name resolution providers could be required to take reasonable measures to block U.S. access. The legislation builds procedural safeguards into the process, including judicial findings of likely infringement and irreparable harm, while drawing opposition from public-interest groups that warn blocking could sweep in lawful websites.

Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ben Cline, R-Va., introduced the DEFEND IP Act, H.R. 10575, on September 24. Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Chris Coons, D-Del., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are leading the legislation in the Senate. The House bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Piracy designation. The legislation would add Section 502A to the Copyright Act and establish a two-stage process. An owner or exclusive licensee of an exclusive copyright right could first petition a federal district court to designate a foreign online location as a “foreign digital piracy site.” The measure covers publicly accessible websites or other identifiable online locations whose operators are outside the United States or cannot be determined to be within the country.

A designation would require findings that material or activity at the site likely violates the petitioner’s copyright rights and is likely to cause irreparable harm. For live events, the petitioner could obtain a designation based on a transmission that will likely infringe its rights and cause irreparable harm. The petitioner also must make a reasonable effort to notify the site operator and certify that a reasonable investigation of publicly available information could not establish that the operator is within the United States.

The site must also meet one of three piracy-focused criteria. It must be primarily designed or provided to violate copyright protections, have no commercially significant purpose or use other than infringement, or be intentionally marketed by or at the direction of its operator to promote infringement.

An operator would have 20 days after the petition is filed to contest a designation, although an order could be entered ex parte once the statutory requirements are satisfied. If the operator does not appear, the district court could appoint a special master to assist in determining whether those requirements have been met.

A designation generally would expire after 360 days if no subsequent blocking order is sought. An operator also could prevent or end a designation by appearing, submitting to U.S. jurisdiction for claims related to the alleged infringement, posting a sufficient bond, and complying with orders to stop the challenged activity.

Blocking access. Once a site receives the designation, the petitioner could ask the same district court to direct covered service providers to take reasonable measures to prevent U.S. users from accessing it. Providers would receive the designation order and blocking petition and could contest their inclusion within 20 days.

Before issuing a blocking order, the district court would consider the burden on the provider and its network, the harm likely to result if access remains available, and whether implementation would be technically feasible and effective. The inquiry also would address whether blocking would interfere with access to lawful material, disserve the public interest, or could be replaced by a less burdensome and comparably effective alternative.

The measure does not prescribe the technology providers must use to comply. It covers broadband providers with at least 50,000 subscribers and public domain-name resolution services with annual revenue exceeding $100 million. It excludes entities providing DNS resolution exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols, providers offering only virtual private network or similar encrypted routing services, and businesses such as libraries, universities, airlines, coffee shops, and bookstores that offer internet access to patrons.

Blocking orders would expire after one year, although they could be extended for additional periods of up to one year. Petitioners would have an ongoing duty to verify information identifying the targeted site and report material changes. Providers could rely on that information without conducting their own investigation.

Providers also would receive immunity for good-faith actions taken to implement an order and, more broadly, from injury claims by a designated piracy site even if the site was later found to have been incorrectly identified or did not qualify for designation. If implementation prevents access to another online location, that site’s operator could ask the district court to modify or rescind the order.

Competing views. The sponsors describe the bill’s judicial oversight and limits on site blocking as safeguards missing from earlier proposals. Lofgren and Cline said previous efforts threatened free speech and gave rightsholders overly broad enforcement powers. Their proposal instead relies on judicial oversight, temporary orders, ongoing verification, and provider-selected technical methods.

“Protecting a free and open internet and standing up for American creators go hand in hand,” Lofgren said. Cline said the legislation would close an enforcement gap that allows foreign piracy operations to remain beyond the effective reach of U.S. copyright law. The measure has support from organizations representing the motion picture, recording, publishing, songwriting, and other creative industries.

The legislation follows the recent introduction of the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026, H.R. 10364, by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. That proposal also would allow copyright owners to obtain judicial orders blocking access to foreign piracy sites and drew objections from digital-rights groups over potential overblocking and effects on lawful expression (See Copyright bill would create court-ordered blocks for foreign piracy sites (Sept. 22, 2026)).

Public Knowledge, a public-interest group, raised similar objections to DEFEND IP, arguing that blocking could sweep in legitimate businesses and leave them to seek relief in federal court after losing access and traffic. The organization also criticized what it described as inadequate remedies for businesses affected by erroneous or overly broad blocks.

Re:Create, a coalition that advocates for balanced copyright policies, also opposed the measure, arguing that it offers fewer public protections than the earlier legislation and could allow lawful sites to be blocked along with infringing ones. The group pointed to European site-blocking systems that it says have disrupted access to businesses, universities, government agencies, and other lawful sites.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright TechnologyInternet FedTracker IP GCNNews