Sponsors (3)
The bill increases platform accountability and potential user remedies by limiting certain immunity protections, but does so at the cost of higher legal and compliance burdens, likely higher costs or reduced services for users, greater strain on courts, and increased risk of over-removal of speech.
Internet users gain an expanded private right to sue platforms for removed or hosted content, increasing legal remedies for victims of harassment, defamation, or other harms.
Platforms are incentivized to invest more in content moderation and safety measures to reduce legal risk, which could lower the prevalence of harmful content online.
Criminal statutes and enforcement provisions that reference §223(i) are clarified, helping law enforcement and federal agencies identify which services fall under criminal prohibitions.
Users and small businesses could face reduced access to free services, fewer features, or higher costs as platforms restrict content or raise prices to limit legal exposure; smaller platforms and startups may be disproportionately harmed by increased compliance and legal risk.
Content moderation is likely to shift toward over-removal of speech-sensitive material, raising free-expression concerns for users, publishers, students, and small businesses.
Increased litigation risk could burden courts, raise taxpayer costs, and drag ordinary users into legal processes (subpoenas, discovery, defense costs).
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Repeals federal Section 230 immunity and updates many statutes to remove or replace references to that immunity.
Official title: To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.
Introduced January 13, 2026 by Jimmy Patronis · Last progress January 13, 2026
Repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act and updates dozens of federal statutes and cross-references to remove or replace references to that immunity. The bill strips the federal statutory liability protection that has limited when online platforms, websites, and service providers can be sued for third‑party content, and it redirects several definitions and references to an alternative statutory definition in 47 U.S.C. § 223(i). The bill makes multiple conforming edits across federal law so other statutes no longer rely on Section 230’s immunity language and instead use adjusted text or the §223(i) definition. The changes take effect on enactment and are substantive (changing who is covered and how statutes refer to internet services), not merely technical renaming or housekeeping edits.