Congress Has Another Site-Blocking Bill, And This One Targets VPNs

American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) re‑emerges in Congress as a fresh attempt to force internet intermediaries to block foreign sites deemed infringing, and it does so by pulling VPN providers into the enforcement net. Rep. Darrell Issa (R‑CA) is the bill’s sponsor, positioning the measure as a copyright solution while sidestepping the technical realities of a globally distributed web. Readers who rely on VPNs for privacy, remote work, or accessing legitimate overseas content should care because the bill threatens a core tool of digital freedom.

Legislative Mechanics: How the ACPA Would Operate

The bill, identified as H.R. 10364, authorizes copyright owners to petition a court to label a foreign website a “foreign piracy site.” Once that label is granted, the court can issue orders compelling internet service providers, DNS operators, and—crucially—VPN services to take “commercially reasonable steps” to block U.S. users from reaching the site. The language is deliberately broad, giving judges discretion over what constitutes a reasonable blocking method.

Unlike prior proposals, the ACPA does not require the accused site to appear in court to defend itself; the designation can be issued on the basis of the copyright owner’s evidence alone. This procedural shortcut accelerates the blocking timeline but eliminates a fundamental due‑process safeguard, effectively allowing a private party to dictate access restrictions without adversarial testing.

Scope Expansion: VPNs and the New “Limited Commercial Purpose” Standard

Previous site‑blocking legislation, such as the Foreign Anti‑Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), explicitly exempted VPN providers and encrypted DNS services from blocking orders. The ACPA overturns those exemptions, placing VPN providers squarely within the enforcement target list. By doing so, the bill treats privacy‑enhancing services as mere conduits, ignoring their role in securing user data and bypassing geographic censorship.

The definition of a “piracy site” also shifts from “no commercially significant purpose or use” to sites with “only limited commercially significant purpose or use” beyond infringement. This lower threshold means that even sites generating legitimate revenue—e‑commerce platforms, news outlets, or streaming services—could be labeled infringing if any portion of their traffic involves copyrighted material. The change widens the net dramatically, threatening a swath of legitimate online commerce.

Procedural Shortcomings and Civil Liberties Risks

One of the bill’s touted “procedural protections” is the requirement that copyright owners first obtain a court order before any blocking can occur. However, the order can be issued without the accused site ever having the chance to contest the allegation, a practice that undermines the adversarial principle central to U.S. law. The lack of a mandatory hearing or notice period leaves foreign operators vulnerable to unilateral U.S. judgments.

Beyond due‑process concerns, the ACPA raises broader civil‑liberties questions. By compelling VPNs to block sites, the legislation effectively forces private companies to act as gatekeepers of speech, a role traditionally reserved for the government under narrowly defined circumstances. This blurring of lines expands governmental reach into the private sector, setting a precedent that could be leveraged for future content‑based restrictions.

What This Actually Means For You

1. If you rely on a VPN for remote work or personal privacy, your provider may soon be legally obligated to block access to sites you consider legitimate.
2. Businesses that host international customers could see traffic filtered or cut off if any portion of their site is deemed “limited commercially significant” in the eyes of a U.S. court.
3. Legal challenges to the ACPA are likely to be costly and time‑consuming, meaning many smaller entities will lack the resources to fight a blocking order.
4. Consumers may experience slower connections or outright denial of service when trying to reach foreign content, even when no infringement is involved.
5. Advocacy groups may push for amendments, but until the bill clears committee, the risk of pre‑emptive compliance by VPN firms remains high.

Immediate Action Steps

Start monitoring the bill’s progress through the House Judiciary Committee and any related hearings; early awareness lets you anticipate compliance deadlines. Contact your VPN provider to ask about their policy on court‑ordered blocking and whether they have a plan to contest overbroad orders.

Consider diversifying your connectivity options—such as using multiple VPN services or encrypted DNS providers that may have different legal interpretations—so you retain access if one provider is forced to block. Keep records of any blocked sites to support potential legal challenges or public advocacy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the ACPA require VPN providers to do?

The ACPA would compel VPN providers to take “commercially reasonable steps” to prevent U.S. users from accessing sites that a court has labeled as foreign piracy sites, even if the VPN does not host the content itself.

How does the ACPA differ from the earlier FADPA bill?

Unlike FADPA, which exempted VPN services and encrypted DNS from blocking orders, the ACPA explicitly includes them, and it narrows the definition of a piracy site to “only limited commercially significant purpose or use,” widening the scope of potential blocks.

Can a foreign website defend itself against a piracy label?

Under the ACPA, a foreign site can be labeled a piracy site without ever appearing in court, meaning it has limited opportunity to contest the designation before blocking measures are imposed.

What Do You Think?

Do you believe that forcing VPN services to act as de facto censors aligns with the principles of an open internet, or does it set a dangerous precedent for future content‑based regulation?