- A new US proposed lawwould force internet providers and VPN services to block “foreign piracy sites” via expedited court orders
- The legislation would apply to ISPs, DNS resolvers, and any VPN provider with at least 100,000 monthly US subscribers
- Digital rights groups warn the fast-track legal process risks massive overreach, citing similar policies in Europe
A newly introduced bill in the US House of Representatives is threatening to fundamentally change how virtual private networks operate within the country. If passed, the legislation would force VPN providers to actively block access to piracy websites, turning vital privacy tunnels into heavily filtered exit ramps.
The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA), formally numbered H.R. 10364, was introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) on September 16, 2026. The bill aims to give copyright holders a fast-track judicial process to obtain blocking orders against platforms accused of copyright infringement.
Crucially, the ACPA explicitly names VPN services alongside traditional broadband providers and DNS resolvers as entities that must enforce these blocklists. For users who rely on thebest VPN software to ensure unrestricted, unmonitored internet access, this legislation poses a direct threat to the core promise of the technology.
The blocking obligations would apply to any VPN service with at least 100,000 monthly US subscribers. This threshold catches almost all major consumer VPN brands, effectively forcing the industry’s biggest players to implement nationwide web filters or risk severe legal consequences.
Laura Tyrylyte, privacy advocate at NordVPN, told TechRadar that there are thousands of VPN solutions available for users worldwide; however, “these blocking measures primarily target reputable, paid VPN providers, leaving free VPN services largely untouched.”
“Free VPNs are often harder to regulate, and since users who seek to avoid paying for content are unlikely to pay for a VPN either, these services will continue to operate without any impact,” she added.
NEW: Leave No Trace — A weekly newsletter on digital privacy and online surveillance.
Leave No Trace investigates the companies and governments putting our digital freedom at risk — and the people fighting back.
📩 Subscribe now to get every edition delivered to your inbox every Friday, launching this September.
Fast-track censorship “at the speed of light”
Under the ACPA, a copyright holder can petition a designated federal judge to declare a website a “foreign piracy site.” The evidentiary bar for this is surprisingly low, requiring only a “preponderance of the evidence.” Once approved, covered providers are given 14 days to object before the blocking order takes effect, though crackdowns on live sports and other time-sensitive material could be executed even faster.
Rep. Issa has made no secret of his desire for aggressive enforcement. Speaking at a June hearing, he framedhis goal bluntly: “Can we do it at the speed of sound? Can we do it at the speed of light?”
Digital rights organizations have heavily criticized the proposal. Meredith Rose of Public Knowledge warnedthat the bill would force any service provider “to disrupt traffic from targeted websites simply accused of copyright infringement.”
Meanwhile, Brandon Butler of Re:Create arguedthe legislation codifies “a one-sided legal process modeled on European site-blocking laws” and “violates American due process, First Amendment rights, and American ingenuity.”
To mitigate the risks of false positives, the bill includes an error provision allowing companies wrongly blocked to claim up to $250,000 in damages, though critics argue this offers little financial comfort to innocent small businesses taken offline.
A growing global threat to unfiltered internet
This isn’t the first time US lawmakers have targeted VPNs in 2026. The ACPA arrives on the heels of Utah’s SB 73, a controversial state law that attempted to regulate VPN use for age verification before facing an enforcement freeze. The ACPA also joins other pending federal proposals, such as the Block BEARD Act and the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act.
However, the real warning signs come from overseas. As Butler noted, the ACPA heavily mirrors aggressive European anti-piracy campaigns, which have alreadyput VPNs in the crosshairs. In countries like Spain and France, court-ordered VPN blocking is already a reality.
These systems have already shown their potential for collateral damage. An analysis by Re:Create found that in Italy, innocent websites remained blocked for an average of 320 days due to overzealous filters. In Spain,over 500,000 websites were wrongly blocked during LaLiga matches, temporarily restricting access to 5.8% of the popular internet.
If the ACPA advances, a VPN’s legal jurisdiction will become more vital than ever. US courts cannot automatically enforce orders against providers incorporated in privacy havens like Panama or the British Virgin Islands. Until then, the battle for the open internet continues on Capitol Hill.
