A new bill proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), aims to grant rights-holders the power to obtain court orders that block access to foreign websites accused of copyright infringement. The bill, introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren of California (D-18), amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code, enabling courts to issue blocking orders against “specifically identified infringing foreign websites or online services.”
The bill outlines a process in which a copyright holder (termed a “covered person”) can petition a U.S. District Court to issue a preliminary order against a foreign website accused of infringement. Once granted, this order allows the copyright holder to request that internet service providers, domain registrars, and other intermediaries block access to the site. Courts may grant these orders even if the accused website does not appear to contest the charges.
The proposal raises numerous concerns, particularly its one-sided nature. A website accused of piracy has only 30 days to contest a blocking order, assuming its operators are even aware of the proceedings. If they fail to respond, courts can appoint a special master to verify the claims and push forward the blockade. The burden of proof is disproportionately low, requiring only a “reasonably diligent investigation” by the petitioner to establish a site’s involvement in copyright infringement.
A History Lesson: DMCA Déjà Vu
If this all sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been down this road before. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed in 1998, was similarly pitched as a balanced solution for enforcing copyright law. Instead, it became an infamously overused tool for suppressing content—whether through fraudulent takedown requests, corporate censorship, or outright abuse of the system. Even YouTube, which operates under the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown framework, has repeatedly acknowledged its misuse.
FADPA follows in these footsteps but with a far more aggressive stance: rather than simply demanding removal of infringing content, it outright removes access to entire websites. This expands the potential for overblocking, an issue where legal content gets swept up in broad enforcement measures. A single infringing file on a site could, under this bill, be grounds for blocking the entire domain.
Digital rights groups have already voiced strong opposition. The Re:Create Coalition for Balanced Copyright warns that “FADPA and similar ‘site-blocking’ proposals would give Big Content the internet kill switch it has sought for decades. Copyright is hotly contested and infamously easy to use as a cudgel against free speech online. FADPA’s one-sided proceedings will be an irresistible tool for internet trolls and censors.”
The bill also reinforces California’s position as the stronghold of aggressive copyright lobbying. With Hollywood, major record labels, and gaming giants headquartered in the state, it’s no surprise that Representative Lofgren is leading the charge. These industries have long sought stricter anti-piracy measures, often at the expense of internet freedoms.
The Risks of a Digital Arms Race
History has shown that aggressive anti-piracy laws often drive users to more obscure, harder-to-police alternatives. The rise of VPNs, Tor networks, and decentralized sharing services has largely been fueled by restrictive copyright enforcement. FADPA, if enacted, could push even casual users toward deeper parts of the internet, where risks of malware, fraud, and illegal activity are significantly higher.
Moreover, blocking access to foreign sites through legal fiat is an extreme measure with global ramifications. The bill lacks strong safeguards to prevent abuse and fails to address the collateral damage it could cause to online expression, independent content creators, and digital entrepreneurs.
FADPA is a stark reminder that the fight against online piracy often comes at the cost of internet freedom. Like the DMCA before it, this bill presents itself as a reasonable solution while opening the door for widespread abuse. The potential for overblocking and censorship is alarming, especially when history has shown that copyright claims are frequently weaponized to suppress speech.
If lawmakers truly want to curb piracy, they should focus on making legal content more accessible and affordable rather than handing major corporations a legal sledgehammer to wield against the open internet. As Gabe Newell famously put it, “Piracy is almost always a service problem.” Instead of building digital walls, the better path is to improve legitimate access to content and compete with piracy on convenience and affordability.
You can read the text of the bill to judge for yourself here.