(Reclaim The Net)—US Representatives Mark DeSaulnier and Jimmy Patronis have introduced a bill to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act, that generally protects online platforms and services from liability for third party content.
The two congressmen, a Democrat and a Republican, made the announcement on September 10, 2026, and their proposed legislation, the Sunset Section 230 Act, would achieve the repeal two years after its enactment.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The bill is brief, just six pages long, and simply states that Section 230 is “repealed” – without proposing any new, replacement framework of liability that online services would have to deal with.
DeSaulnier and Patronis, however, had more to say about their proposal, and why they think it’s necessary. DeSaulnier spoke about the harm that he claims is caused by social media – specifically, that one in five teenagers report that these platforms have a negative impact on their mental health.
Patronis accused big tech of “pushing digital fentanyl to our kids.”
The target of the bill, Section 230, was originally added to the Communications Act in 1996, as a way to give online services and users legal protection from being treated as the publishers or speakers of third party content. Another provision protects good-faith efforts to remove content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
There are already exceptions to this rule, notably regarding federal criminal liability and intellectual property claims.
Repealing this would expose a wide variety of online services to legal liability for user generated content, from social media giants to community forums, review sites, and news media with comment sections. The risk of costly lawsuits could incentivize these sites and services to avoid legal trouble by removing potentially controversial content before it is even disputed – and the biggest and the most powerful would be best equipped to handle the legal costs, while smaller sites and independent voices could be disproportionately affected.
This is not about these companies and their policies, but about the legal framework that makes it possible for online speech to flourish without an excessive fear of litigation. Lawful speech can be chilled when the cost of defending it in court becomes prohibitively expensive, even if the final ruling is in favor of the defendant.
Removing posts, closing comments, or accepting fewer submissions from users looks like an easier and cheaper way out. And that is something that can happen even before a lawsuit is ever filed.
