Within ten days in September 2026, two competing site-blocking bills landed in the U.S. Congress. Both target foreign piracy websites that slip past traditional domestic takedowns, yet they take drastically different approaches to technical intermediaries, VPNs, and provider liability.

• The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA, H.R. 10364), introduced September 14 by Representative Darrell Issa.

• The DEFEND IP Act (H.R. 10575), introduced September 24 by Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Ben Cline, alongside a bipartisan companion bill in the Senate.

While Hollywood and creator coalitions have welcomed federal site-blocking legislation, brand managers and IP enforcement teams face a critical operational question: Does blocking an intermediary domain actually eliminate your stolen IP?

The short answer is no. Restricting network access and removing illicit host files are two entirely different jobs.

ACPA vs. DEFEND IP: How the Proposals Stack Up

Both bills empower federal courts to issue blocking injunctions against foreign websites dedicated to copyright infringement, but their enforcement mechanics diverge on crucial points.

The Key Disagreements: VPNs and Legal Protections

1. The VPN Battleground

The most contentious fault line is how each proposal treats Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

Under the ACPA, any commercial VPN operating in the U.S. with at least 100,000 monthly users could be ordered by a federal judge to cut user access to designated foreign domains. The DEFEND IP Act, by contrast, carves out an explicit exemption for standalone VPN providers and encrypted DNS networks. For rights holders, this distinction determines whether overseas proxy workarounds will remain frictionless or face immediate regulatory headwinds.

2. Provider Shields and Expense Recovery

The ACPA extends an affirmative copyright liability shield: once an offshore site is officially designated, an ISP or VPN carrying traffic cannot be sued for monetary infringement damages unless it actively colluded with the pirate network.

The DEFEND IP Act avoids broad copyright immunities. It relies on existing DMCA § 512 provisions and instead protects compliant network operators strictly from retaliatory breach-of-contract or tort lawsuits brought by the blocked operators. Furthermore, DEFEND IP strictly caps ISP cost recovery, disallowing legal fees, capital equipment, or overhead expenses.

Why a Blocking Order Does Not Delete the Content

To build an effective brand protection strategy, you cannot treat an inaccessible URL as equivalent to a removed file.

When a federal court orders a Tier-1 broadband carrier or public DNS resolver to block access:

1. The domestic ISP stops resolving queries or routing traffic to that specific host/IP address.

2. The underlying storage server remains completely untouched.

If an operator switches top-level domains (e.g., jumping from .to to .is), provisions a cloud mirror, or redistributes media via alternate content delivery networks, the content remains live. Site blocking raises the friction of discovery for domestic casual consumers, but it leaves the core distribution asset intact.

Fixing Enforcement Metrics: Stop Grouping "Blocked" with "Removed"

Reporting piracy stats under a single aggregate metric, such as "Total Infringements Resolved," distorts your operational data. If your dashboard marks a court-ordered ISP block as a "takedown," your team will overestimate enforcement permanence.

The 5 Essential Status Tiers for Brand Protection

To measure return on enforcement spend, track these lifecycle states independently:

• Reported: A formal notice, designation claim, or DMCA takedown has been submitted to an intermediary or host.

• Blocked: Network-level access is restricted via specific broadband providers, DNS resolvers, or local transit hubs.

• Delisted: The search engine or indexer removed the link from public search queries, reducing discoverability.

• Removed: The digital host, cyberlocker, or server host has deleted the source file or terminated the originating account.

• Reappeared: The identical asset has resurfaced via a mirror URL, alternative domain, or fresh CDN bucket.

What Rights Holders Should Track

• Time to Host Response: The elapsed time between notice delivery to an offshore host and physical deletion of the file.

• Domain Hop Velocity: How quickly target sites redirect to secondary domains after a regional ISP or DNS block triggers.

• Asset Recurrence Rate: The percentage of catalog titles that reappear within 30, 60, and 90 days across alternate platforms.

• Multi-Point Verification: Confirming availability from non-US and alternate proxy endpoints to verify whether an asset was genuinely taken offline or merely geo-blocked.

Site Blocking Restricts the Path; Source Enforcement Cuts the Root

Site-blocking legislation in the U.S. signals an evolving toolkit against offshore piracy rings that ignore DMCA notices. Yet passing a bill through the House Judiciary Committee does not alter network architecture.

Blocking access addresses the consumer route. Source-level enforcement targets the file itself. Modern IP strategy requires both: applying legal pressure on high-volume access points, while running continuous, automated discovery to dismantle hosting clusters, de-index mirrors, and suppress asset reappearance.

See How Ceartas Secures Your Digital Footprint

Tracking infringing assets across fragmented networks requires proactive detection, automated source-level takedowns, and relentless post-removal monitoring. Explore Ceartas Content Protection Solutions.