US Bill Targets VPNs and ISPs with Piracy Blocklists

A new bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to transform how copyright infringement is enforced online. The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) would require VPN providers, ISPs, and DNS resolvers to block access to "foreign piracy sites" via fast-track court orders, raising concerns about overreach, privacy, and due process.

What the ACPA Proposes

According to TechRadar, the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA), introduced as H.R. 10364 by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) on September 16, 2026, would require ISPs, DNS resolvers, and VPN providers with at least 100,000 monthly U.S. subscribers to block access to "foreign piracy sites." The bill grants copyright holders a fast-track judicial process to obtain blocking orders, with a low evidentiary standard described as a "preponderance of the evidence."

Once a site is declared a "foreign piracy site," covered providers have 14 days to comply with the blocking order, though the bill allows for faster enforcement in cases involving live sports or other time-sensitive material.

The ACPA also includes a $250,000 damages provision for companies wrongly blocked by court orders, though critics argue this amount is insufficient to cover potential harm to small businesses or startups.

Criticism and Concerns

Digital rights groups and privacy advocates have raised alarms about the ACPA’s potential for overreach. According to TechRadar, organizations like Public Knowledge and Re:Create warn the bill threatens due process, free speech, and user privacy. Laura Tyrylyte, a privacy advocate at NordVPN, reportedly described the bill as "a slippery slope toward internet censorship," emphasizing concerns about the erosion of digital rights.

Meredith Rose of Public Knowledge and Brandon Butler of Re:Create were reported as arguing that the bill’s low evidentiary bar could lead to widespread, unjustified blocking of websites. They also highlighted risks to small businesses and startups, which may lack the resources to challenge wrongful orders or absorb financial losses from even temporary blocking.

The bill’s approach mirrors European anti-piracy policies, which have faced criticism for collateral damage. According to TechRadar, similar measures in Italy led to innocent websites being blocked for an average of 320 days, while in Spain, over 500,000 websites were wrongly blocked during LaLiga matches, affecting 5.8% of the "popular internet."

Legal and Operational Challenges

The ACPA’s requirements pose significant legal and operational challenges for VPN providers, many of which are incorporated in jurisdictions like Panama or the British Virgin Islands to protect user privacy. According to TechRadar, U.S. courts may struggle to enforce blocking orders against these providers, creating uncertainty for both businesses and users.

The bill’s focus on VPNs is particularly contentious. VPNs are often used to bypass censorship, protect user anonymity, and access region-locked content. Forcing providers to comply with blocklists could undermine trust in these tools, potentially pushing users toward less transparent or decentralized alternatives. This shift could create both risks and opportunities for startups in the privacy and cybersecurity sectors.

What this means

LazyFounders analysis — our interpretation, not reported fact.

For founders and operators in the tech and digital rights space, the ACPA represents a significant shift in the U.S. approach to copyright enforcement. If passed, the bill would place unprecedented compliance burdens on VPN providers, ISPs, and DNS resolvers—many of which are startups or mid-sized companies.

The fast-track judicial process and low evidentiary bar could lead to overbroad blocking, creating operational and legal risks for businesses. Even providers incorporated in privacy-friendly jurisdictions may face pressure to comply or risk losing access to U.S. users.

The bill’s reliance on European-style enforcement mechanisms is particularly concerning. The collateral damage seen in Spain and Italy—where innocent sites were wrongly blocked for extended periods—suggests U.S. companies could face similar disruptions. For startups, this could mean costly legal battles, reputational harm, or even business interruptions if their platforms are mistakenly targeted.

Privacy advocates are also sounding alarms about the potential chilling effect on digital rights. If VPNs are forced to enforce blocklists, users may lose trust in tools designed to protect anonymity and bypass censorship. This could accelerate demand for decentralized or offshore alternatives, creating both challenges and opportunities for founders in the privacy and cybersecurity sectors.

Key takeaways

• The ACPA targets VPNs, ISPs, and DNS resolvers with 100,000+ U.S. subscribers, requiring them to block "foreign piracy sites" via court orders.
• Blocking orders can take effect in 14 days, with faster crackdowns possible for time-sensitive content like live sports.
• Critics warn the bill risks overreach, threatens privacy, and could lead to wrongful blocking of innocent websites.
• The $250,000 damages provision for wrongly blocked companies is criticized as insufficient.
• European precedents show similar policies have caused collateral damage, with innocent sites blocked for months.

FAQ

What is the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA)?

The ACPA is a proposed U.S. bill that would require ISPs, DNS resolvers, and VPN providers with at least 100,000 monthly U.S. subscribers to block access to "foreign piracy sites" via expedited court orders.

Who would be affected by the ACPA?

The bill targets VPN providers, ISPs, and DNS resolvers with 100,000+ monthly U.S. subscribers. This includes many startups and mid-sized companies in the tech and internet services sectors.

How would the ACPA enforce blocking orders?

Copyright holders could petition a federal judge to declare a website a "foreign piracy site" based on a "preponderance of the evidence." Blocking orders would take effect in 14 days, though time-sensitive content like live sports could face faster enforcement.

Why are digital rights groups concerned about the ACPA?

Critics argue the bill risks overreach, threatens privacy, and violates due process. They also warn of collateral damage, such as wrongful blocking of innocent websites, similar to what has occurred in Europe.

What are the potential consequences for startups?

Startups in the VPN, ISP, or DNS space may face compliance burdens, legal risks, and reputational harm if their platforms are wrongly targeted. The $250,000 damages provision for wrongful blocking is seen as insufficient to cover potential losses.

Related on LazyFounders

• NordVPN
• More policy news
• How VPNs Protect Online Privacy and Bypass Internet Restrictions