U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Dem-CA) has introduced H.R. 791, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (or FADPA), to prevent foreign-run piracy sites from exploiting loopholes in U.S. law. The Act sets site-blocking laws that require U.S. internet providers to make “a good faith effort” to disable access to pirate websites.
Lofgren is Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a senior member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet. After working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries, she said, “we’ve arrived at a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free internet except for the infringers.”
Foreign digital piracy, she adds, presents a “massive and growing threat,” costing American jobs, harming the creative community, and exposing consumers to dangerous security risks. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused.
“Compromise is often found when you sit and hash out policy recommendations with the workers, companies, and users directly involved, and I appreciate the support from the tech and content communities in this effort. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairmen Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan on anti-piracy measures in the near future,” Lofgren said.
Rep. Issa (R-CA) is the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
Trade groups applauded the bill with the Motion Picture Association noting that intellectual property theft drains at least $30 billion and 230,000 jobs from the U.S. economy each year. It said more than 55 countries including Canada, the UK and Australia have tools in place similar to those proposed by Rep. Lofgren that have successfully reduced piracy’s harms while protecting consumer access to legal content.
“The MPA thanks Rep. Lofgren for introducing FADPA and for her commitment to work with Chairman Issa to enact legislation this Congress to ensure America’s creators have effective enforcement tools to combat offshore piracy targeting the U.S. market,” said MPA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin.
Jean Prewitt, president and CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance, said foreign copyright piracy is also a grave problem for independent film producers. “Site blocking legislation is badly needed to protect U.S. creators from industrial-strength theft of their films and programs by foreign bad actors, who are outside the reach of U.S. legal jurisdiction.”
“We also look forward to working with … Chair Darrell Issa as he leads a bi -partisan effort, working with Rep. Lofgren and other members to craft a legislative solution to deal with foreign copyright piracy and protect our industry and U.S. economic productivity,” she said.
The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the Authors Guild, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE),the Copyright Alliance, and the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), and leading technology policy think tanks, ITIF, also backed the bill.
Background on the issue Lofgren’s office provided, citing research, said that in 2019, U.S.-produced television episodes and movies were illegally streamed or downloaded, respectively, 126.7 billion and 26.6 billion times. By 2022, global visits to movie and TV piracy sites reached 191.8 billion, costing the U.S. economy $29.2 billion annually and threatening more than 230,000 American jobs in entertainment, technology, and small businesses.
Today, it said, some illegal foreign online pirate sites are bigger than some of the biggest legit U.S. streaming services. One piracy site hit 364 million visits in October of 2024, which was larger than Disney+ viewership in that same month. Live sports are also a prime target, with piracy draining $28 billion annually from the global sports industry.
“Past U.S. efforts to curb piracy failed because they lacked due process, threatened free speech, and provided overly-broad enforcement powers that risked harming legitimate websites and the open internet,” the announcement said.
That’s certainly what some felt about Obama-era legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), which lawmakers quickly walked back after facing a really furious onslaught by the U.S. tech industry.
Today is the first time legislators have really dared to touched the issue of digital piracy since then.
“A decade ago, I was at the center of the successful effort to prevent the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) from becoming law. That was not because I support copyright infringement, but because I support the open internet. Lofgren said. She said the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act takes a better approach.
It protects service providers from legal liability. ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries are shielded from lawsuits “as long as they comply in good faith” with court-ordered blocking measures. The good faith element could make enforcement messy but it’s a start.
As per the famous (or infamous) Section 230 of Telecommunications Act of the late 1990s, service providers are not responsible for content on their platforms, with very few exceptions. A 2018 law under the Trump Administration did legally prohibit sex trafficking sites. Providers tend to cry slippery slope and the end of free speech at any carve-out to their Section 230 freedom, which courts have mostly respected.
Other highlights of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act:
It only targets large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites.
It respects First Amendment rights. Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship. Courts must first verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.
It allows for feasible tech solutions. Unlike past proposals, the bill does not mandate specific technical measures for blocking. Instead, it allows service providers to determine the best, least intrusive methods to comply with court orders.
It provides a narrowly-tailored blocking mechanism limited to piracy sites that exist solely to infringe copyrights.
