From Testimony to Action: Proposed Legislation to Address Issues Raised by Rights Owners During Recent House Hearing

On June 30, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing titled, “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40,” which examined whether current U.S. intellectual property laws and enforcement mechanisms are effective against Internet-driven infringement and counterfeiting. The hearing focused on online counterfeiting, digital piracy, and AI-enabled or generated infringement and digital replicas. The hearing also considered the difficulty in enforcing rights against overseas operators, and enforcement tools to address these issues, including Schedule A litigation and website blocking. The Committee heard testimony from, among others, representatives for the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the Software Information Industry Association (SIIA), and film production company Amblin Entertainment, Inc. A recurring theme from the hearing was a lack of recourse against foreign operators who are outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement and civil liability. This article provides proposed legislative solutions to strengthen existing and proposed legislation for intellectual property enforcement against Internet-based acts by foreign defendants.

Issue: Online Counterfeiting

Witnesses described how the business of counterfeiting has shifted from physical markets to online marketplaces, social media platforms, and websites. The testimony echoes a 2020 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which stated that “e-commerce platforms, third-party marketplaces, and their supporting intermediaries have also served as powerful stimulants for the trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods.”

A significant challenge is that foreign defendants hide their identities online. Under the INFORM Consumers Act, ecommerce platforms are required to collect a working email address, phone number, and at least one form of identification from each seller. Sellers who operate out of their homes and only have a personal phone are only required to provide an email address or some other method to be contacted electronically. Despite the INFORM Consumers Act, rights owners have complained that ecommerce platforms have lax registration and verification procedures, and sellers are registering using fake names or contact information.

Solution: Picking up where the INFORM Consumers Act Left off

As noted by several witnesses during the hearing, Schedule A litigation is one of few effective mechanisms for targeting online counterfeiting. Recently, there has been some judicial pushback against procedural aspects of Schedule A litigation, including jurisdiction or service of process via email, leaving rights owners with even fewer options than before. Legislation that prevents defendants from operating anonymously on ecommerce platforms and provides clarity to the judiciary on procedural aspects of Schedule A litigation would be highly beneficial for rights owners and consumers.

Amendments that would strengthen the INFORM Consumers Act include:

• Requiring that all sellers maintain a working email address, which must be verified on a regular basis, e.g., weekly; and
• Requiring that sellers agree, as part of the terms of service to sell goods on the ecommerce platform, they:
  • Are subject to the jurisdiction of any state they advertise, offer to sell, and sell their goods to through the platform, and
  • Accept service of process via the email address registered with the platform for lawsuits that arise from the advertisement, offers for sale, or sales of their goods.

These amendments clarify issues of personal jurisdiction and service of process for foreign defendants who commit infringing acts online, and benefit consumers by guaranteeing a verifiable means of communicating with sellers on the platform.

Issue: Digital Piracy

Chris Floyd, Of Counsel for the film production company Amblin Entertainment, testified to the enormous costs of digital piracy in the modern age. In 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that online piracy costs the economy $29.2 billion in lost revenue. A significant problem, Floyd testified, is that there is limited recourse against digital piracy operations located overseas. Among developed nations, the United States ranks first in visits to pirate websites, in part because it does not have website blocking legislation.

Solution: Website Blocking Legislation that Mirrors Rule 65

More than 50 countries permit pirate website blocking, and 39 actively block pirate websites. Floyd touted the success of website blocking in some of these countries, noting that Portugal saw a 70% drop in traffic to blocked pirate websites and Australia saw a 25% drop in one year.

Proposed website blocking legislation should provide a mechanism for rights owners to seek injunctive relief against foreign-based online platforms, websites, or internet service providers (ISPs) who are engaging in digital piracy. Such legislation should:

• Mirror Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for seeking preliminary injunctions and ex parte temporary restraining orders; and
• Allow the petitioner to request that applicable third parties (e.g., ISPs) provide any known contact information for the foreign website owner or operator to the petitioner.

The use of an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is necessary since notice of the petition may cause the defendant to shift to another website or domain before the petitioner can identify who is behind the operation.  Additionally, the proposed legislation allows the petitioner to seek a preliminary injunction on notice to the defendant, since service of process under Rule 4 would not be possible if the defendant is operating anonymously. Legislation incorporating the above points would not only block offending websites but also provide critical identifying information for future enforcement actions.

There are two proposed pieces of legislation into which the above amendments could be incorporated. The first is the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act, H.R.791, which was assigned to the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 28, 2025. This Act would establish a process for copyright owners to file a petition for issuance of a preliminary blocking order for foreign websites or ISPs who are engaging in copyright infringement. However, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act requires the petitioner to serve the service provider in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is a circuit split on how a foreign defendant residing in a country that is a member of the Hague Convention may be served under Rule 4. Petitioners who want to use this Act may have difficulty with service depending on where the case is filed.

The second piece of legislation is the bipartisan Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act of 2025 (the Block BEARD Act), which allows for a rights owner to petition for a preliminary blocking order for search engines, social media networks, and other digital platforms, in addition to foreign websites and ISPs. Unlike the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act, however, the Block BEARD Act only requires that the petitioner has made “reasonable effort” to provide notice. The Block BEARD Act has not been assigned to committee.

Issue: AI and its Impact on Intellectual Property

Sean Astin, an actor and President of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), testified that members of SAG-AFTRA, as well as everyday citizens, “have almost no ability to protect themselves” from having their image, voice, or likeness stolen or misappropriated. While Astin testified to the unique damage AI-misappropriated content causes to creators and those in the entertainment industry, he also testified that such content causes significant damage to all individuals because of its ability to facilitate bullying, harassment, misinformation, and defamation of others.

Solution: Strengthening the NO FAKES Act as it Applies to Foreign Defendants

The NO FAKES Act would, among other things, create a new intellectual property right which grants the individual or owner the right to authorize the use of an individual’s visual likeness or voice in a digital replica. As discussed throughout this article, a significant concern for current rights owners is enforcement against overseas defendants. This concern will similarly be an issue for enforcing against unauthorized use of visual likeness or voice as proposed by the NO FAKES Act.

Currently, there are four versions of the NO FAKES Act, S.1367, S.4591, H.R.2794, and H.R.8915, each at various stages of the legislative process. All four versions create “[a] civil action against an individual or entity that, in a manner affecting interstate commerce (or using any means or facility of interstate commerce)” displays, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public, or distributes a product or service that produces, a digital replica of an individual without authorization. However, none of the four versions define what it means to “affect” interstate commerce or include provisions for jurisdiction and venue for such causes of action.

Accordingly, the NO FAKES Act should be amended to:

• Define “in a manner affecting interstate commerce” to mean any activity that directly or indirectly impacts the flow of trade, services, or goods across state or national lines, including the advertisement, offer for sale, or sale of a product or service;
• Establish that personal jurisdiction is proper in any state where interstate commerce has been affected, and venue is proper wherever in personam jurisdiction is proper; and
• Require that online service users agree, as part of the terms of using the online service, that they have a working email address and accept service of process through the email address.

These amendments would provide much-needed clarity to the judiciary and rights owners on what activity is actionable, where these causes of actions may be brought, and how overseas defendants may be served.

What’s Next?

Subcommittee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) concluded the hearing with a pledge to move the NO FAKES Act forward and to introduce a bill for website blocking for foreign websites that violate U.S. copyright laws.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: Konstantinp
Image ID: 70846679