Sunday 4 October 2026
Afternoon EditionRSS
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
US Politics

New US bill would force ISPs, DNS services, and VPNs to block foreign piracy sites

The American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 introduces court-ordered blocking for foreign websites hosting pirated content, with significant technical and jurisdictional questions left open.

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
A new bill introduced in the U.S. Congress, the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 (H.R. 10364), would require internet service providers, DNS resolvers, and virtual private networks (VPNs) to block foreign websites or services hosting pirated content. The bill creates a court-ordered blocking process, with a special fast-track for live-streamed events, and exempts small providers with fewer than 100,000 monthly users. However, the legislation leaves key definitions—particularly around what constitutes a connection "from the United States"—vague, raising concerns about how it would apply to VPNs and content delivery networks.

The American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 (ACPA) would compel ISPs, DNS providers, and VPNs to block access to foreign piracy sites under a standard court-issued order that would take effect in 14 to 30 days. A special provision targets "time-sensitive events" such as live sports or shows, allowing a judge to shorten the deadline as long as the first instance of piracy occurs within 24 hours of the content going live.

Blocking at the ISP and DNS level is relatively straightforward for most users who rely on their provider's default DNS. The bill also covers third-party DNS services like Google DNS and Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1, which would have to ignore certain resolution requests from U.S. users. Small ISPs and services with fewer than 100,000 monthly users are exempted, as are root DNS and top-level domain providers. The legislation does not specify a mandated blocking method, raising the possibility that providers may take a heavy-handed approach to avoid liability. It also makes no mention of protecting or nullifying encryption.

The most significant ambiguity involves VPNs and how the law defines "from the United States." The bill does not clearly state whether a connection originates from a U.S. subscriber abroad, a VPN endpoint located in the U.S., or a user inside the country routing through a foreign VPN. Additional questions arise around multi-hop VPNs, shared IPs, carrier-grade NAT, and roaming users. These technical complexities have led to speculation about how the law would be enforced in practice without overreaching.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The bill would impose new blocking obligations on a wide range of internet services, potentially affecting how millions of Americans access content.
  • The ambiguity around VPNs could have significant implications for privacy, circumvention tools, and the global architecture of the internet.
  • If passed, the law could set a precedent for similar legislation in other countries or at the state level.

Background

The American Copyright Protection Act of 2026 is the latest in a long line of U.S. legislative efforts to curb online piracy. Earlier attempts, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), faced widespread opposition and were shelved after massive protests. The current bill targets foreign-hosted piracy sites specifically, and introduces a streamlined court-ordered blocking process. It also includes a fast-track provision for live-streamed events, reflecting the growing concern of sports leagues and broadcasters about real-time piracy.

Key Perspectives

Copyright holders and content industries: They support the bill as a necessary tool to protect intellectual property and revenue from foreign piracy operations that are hard to prosecute directly. ISPs, VPNs, and DNS providers: These service providers face technical and legal uncertainty about compliance. The lack of clarity on definitions—especially regarding VPNs and CDNs—could lead to costly litigation or overblocking to avoid liability. Privacy advocates and civil liberties groups: While not directly quoted in the legislation, critics are likely to argue that the bill creates a regime of court-ordered internet censorship, undermines encryption, and could be used to block legitimate content due to overly broad compliance measures.

What to Watch

  • The bill's progress through committee and whether it attracts bipartisan support or faces opposition from free-speech and tech industry groups.
  • How Congress or the courts clarify the definition of "from the United States" and its application to VPNs, especially in the context of multi-hop connections and roaming.
  • Potential legal challenges from VPN providers or civil liberties organizations if the bill passes, focusing on jurisdiction and First Amendment concerns.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workReport an errorSubscribe