Congress Eyes Unified Pirate Site-Blocking Bill After Supreme Court Copyright Decision 

That legislation may be closer than most people realize.

According to a report by TorrentFreak, a news site that closely covers the online piracy space, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) have been quietly working together on a unified bill. The proposal would require both internet service providers and large DNS providers to block foreign pirate websites under court order. DNS providers are the companies that act as the internet’s address book, translating web addresses into the IP addresses that route traffic to the correct servers. Major players include Google and Cloudflare.

The move to combine two previously separate proposals into one is significant. Lofgren introduced her Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act in the House in January 2025. Tillis followed with his Block BEARD Act in the Senate, drawing bipartisan support. The two efforts were uncoordinated at the time. They no longer are.

The inclusion of DNS providers is one of the most consequential elements of the emerging bill. Most site-blocking regimes around the world target internet providers but leave DNS companies alone. This bill would change that, pulling major tech companies directly into the enforcement framework. Neither Google nor Cloudflare responded to requests for comment from TorrentFreak. Both companies have previously pushed back against similar blocking orders in other countries, including France.

Related: AI in Litigation Series: An Update on AI Copyright Cases in 2026

The Supreme Court ruling that catalyzed all of this came in the case of Cox Communications. The court reversed a billion-dollar piracy liability verdict against the internet provider, confirming that ISPs cannot be held responsible for the behavior of pirating customers unless they actively encourage that behavior. For copyright holders, the decision was a serious blow. Justice Sotomayor, in a concurring opinion, noted that the ruling “permits ISPs to sell an internet connection to every single infringer who wants one without fear of liability and without lifting a finger to prevent infringement.”

With that legal avenue narrowed, rightsholders are now looking to Congress. Groups including the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association have backed the site-blocking push. Consumer advocates have raised concerns, though the public debate has so far been quieter than the fierce battles over the Stop Online Piracy Act in 2012. Lofgren herself was one of SOPA’s loudest opponents at the time. She now describes her current proposal as a smart, targeted approach that protects free speech and due process.

A separate bill from Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) adds another variable. His American Copyright Protection Act takes a different path, proposing a dedicated roster of judges to handle all piracy blocking cases. It also includes a provision allowing websites wrongly caught up in a blocking order to seek up to $250,000 in compensation from the copyright owner. Whether Issa’s effort eventually merges with the Tillis-Lofgren framework remains an open question.

The clock is ticking. Senator Tillis is not running for reelection, giving him until January 2027 to see the legislation through. No draft text has been made public. One possibility floated by sources is that the bill could be attached to a broader spending package, though that remains speculative for now.

What is clear is that the combination of a fresh Supreme Court ruling and renewed bipartisan cooperation has given site-blocking legislation more momentum than it has had in years.