US Bill Would Force VPNs and ISPs to Block Piracy Sites Under Fast-Track Orders

The legislation aims to give copyright holders a fast-track judicial process to obtain blocking orders against platforms accused of copyright infringement. It explicitly names VPN services alongside traditional broadband providers and DNS resolvers as entities that must enforce the blocklists. For users who rely on VPNs for unrestricted, unmonitored internet access, the bill would turn those services into filtered gateways, according to TechRadar.

The blocking obligations would apply to any VPN service with at least 100,000 monthly US subscribers. That threshold captures almost all major consumer VPN brands, effectively forcing the industry’s biggest players to implement nationwide web filters or face legal consequences.

Under the ACPA, a copyright holder can petition a designated federal judge to declare a website a “foreign piracy site.” The evidentiary bar is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Once approved, covered providers have 14 days to object before the blocking order takes effect, though crackdowns on live sports and other time-sensitive material could be executed faster. Rep. Issa has made no secret of his desire for aggressive enforcement. Speaking at a June hearing, he framed his goal bluntly: “Can we do it at the speed of sound? Can we do it at the speed of light?”

Digital rights organizations have criticized the proposal. Meredith Rose of Public Knowledge warned that the bill would force any service provider “to disrupt traffic from targeted websites simply accused of copyright infringement.” Brandon Butler of Re:Create argued the 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.

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.

The ACPA is not the first US measure in 2026 to target VPNs. It follows Utah’s SB 73, a state law that attempted to regulate VPN use for age verification before facing an enforcement freeze. It also joins other pending federal proposals, such as the Block BEARD Act and the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act.

Similar policies overseas have already put VPNs in the crosshairs. In Spain and France, court-ordered VPN blocking is already a reality. 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 important. US courts cannot automatically enforce orders against providers incorporated in privacy havens like Panama or the British Virgin Islands.