H.R. 7045, the "Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust Act" (PROTECT Act), deletes section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 in full and makes a series of conforming edits across federal law. The text removes the Section 230 immunity framework and changes cross‑references and definitions in multiple statutes, including the Communications Act itself, the Trademark Act (Lanham Act), various provisions of Title 18, the Controlled Substances Act, Title 17 (copyright), and other federal statutes and agency statutes.
That structural change matters because Section 230 has been the principal federal safe harbor shielding platforms, hosting providers, libraries, and other intermediaries from most tort liability for third‑party content. Repeal plus the bill’s cross‑statutory edits will create new liability exposures for intermediaries, alter how courts read numerous criminal and civil provisions that previously relied on Section 230 carve‑outs, and shift substantial compliance, litigation, and moderation incentives across the internet ecosystem.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals 47 U.S.C. §230 in its entirety and performs conforming amendments across the Communications Act and a catalogue of federal statutes by removing references to Section 230 and redirecting certain definitions to 47 U.S.C. §223(i). It also strikes and redesignates several related statutory subsections that previously relied on Section 230’s terms.
Who It Affects
Online platforms of all sizes (hosting services, social networks, forums, app stores), libraries and educational institutions that provide access services, content creators and intermediaries, federal and state prosecutors, and plaintiffs bringing claims tied to user‑generated content.
Why It Matters
Removing Section 230 eliminates the principal federal immunity that shaped platform moderation and liability for three decades. The conforming edits spread that change into criminal statutes and intellectual property law, creating new legal questions about when a service is treated as a publisher or a neutral conduit and which actors face civil or criminal exposure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core operative step in the PROTECT Act is simple on its face: it repeals section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 currently prevents courts from treating intermediaries as the publisher or speaker of third‑party content and shields them from a wide range of civil claims tied to user content.
Removing that provision eliminates the federal statutory immunity that many courts have invoked for gatekeeping, hosting, and moderation decisions.
The bill does not stop at repeal. It makes a set of targeted edits across federal law to update cross‑references that pointed to Section 230 and to relocate a key definitional phrase.
Notably, the bill amends the Communications Act itself (section 223) to move the statutory definition of an “interactive computer service” into section 223(i) and to strike and redesignate certain subparagraphs. It then sweeps through other federal statutes—the Trademark Act, Title 17 (copyright), multiple provisions of Title 18 (criminal law), the Controlled Substances Act, the Webb‑Kenyon Act, and provisions governing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and federal jurisdictional language—to replace citations to Section 230 with references to section 223(i) or otherwise remove language that relied on Section 230’s protections.Those cross‑statutory edits matter because several federal criminal and civil provisions previously carved out protections for intermediaries by reference to Section 230’s language.
By changing those references, the bill exposes intermediaries to a broader array of claims and can pull conduct once treated as protected into the reach of criminal statutes and civil liability. For example, the Title 18 edits adjust how statutes addressing distribution of illicit material, child sexual exploitation, and obscenity identify covered intermediaries.
The Lanham Act change severs reliance on Section 230’s definition of “Internet,” replacing it with a generic definition that may alter how trademark claims against online services are pleaded and adjudicated.Finally, the bill sets the effective date: all of these changes take effect on enactment. There are no transitional provisions or safe harbors inserted to phase this change in over time; the statute would immediately remove the federal shelter that courts and platforms have used to evaluate liability and moderation choices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals 47 U.S.C. §230 in full—removing the federal statutory safe harbor that has insulated intermediaries from publisher‑style liability for third‑party content.
It amends the Communications Act to move the definition of “interactive computer service” into section 223(i) and to strike and redesignate related subparagraphs in section 223(h)(1).
The PROTECT Act updates the Trademark Act (Lanham Act) by removing its direct citation to Section 230 and substituting a stand‑alone definition of “Internet,” which severs the Lanham Act’s reliance on Section 230’s definitional language.
Multiple criminal statutes and statutory provisions (Title 18 provisions, the Controlled Substances Act, and others) that previously referenced Section 230 are revised to reference section 223(i) or have Section 230‑based exceptions removed, potentially expanding criminal and civil exposure for intermediaries.
All amendments take effect on the date of enactment—there are no phase‑in periods or transitional immunity provisions in the bill text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: "PROTECT Act"
This short title clause formally names the statute the "Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust Act" (PROTECT Act). Practically, it only sets the public name for the law; it does not create regulatory obligations or definitions beyond the title itself.
Full repeal of Section 230
This subsection deletes 47 U.S.C. §230 outright. That single act removes the statutory language courts have used to bar civil causes of action, to limit publisher liability for third‑party content, and to permit platforms to make content‑moderation choices without being treated as the speaker or publisher of user content.
Redesignates and relocates definitions inside the Communications Act
The bill edits the Communications Act beyond striking Section 230: it removes and redesignates certain subparagraphs in section 223(h)(1) and replaces references that pointed to Section 230’s definitional subsections with a definition placed in section 223(i). The practical effect is to consolidate ‘‘interactive computer service’’ language under section 223, which becomes the new cross‑reference point for statutes the bill updates elsewhere. That relocation will drive how courts interpret which entities are covered under the revised cross‑references.
Amends the Lanham Act, Title 17, and multiple Title 18 provisions
The bill alters the Lanham Act’s Internet definition (15 U.S.C. 1127), removes a subsection of 17 U.S.C. 1401, and adjusts several Title 18 provisions that previously relied on Section 230 definitions. It also removes statutory language in Title 18 and the Controlled Substances Act that treated deletion of third‑party communications consistent with Section 230 as non‑alteration of content. By eliminating those cross‑references and specific carve‑outs, the bill brings a range of IP and criminal provisions into closer contact with intermediary conduct, potentially affecting how liability for infringement, distribution of illicit content, or facilitation of criminal activity is pleaded against services.
Jurisdictional, agency, and effective‑date edits
The bill removes subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C. 4102 and revises language in subsection (e), and it deletes an NTIA organizational provision and redesignates others. Those edits are technical but consequential—they adjust federal jurisdictional and agency references that previously sheltered certain claims and administrative structures tied to Section 230. The final clause makes all amendments effective on the date of enactment; the bill contains no transition period or interim safe harbor.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Plaintiffs and alleged victims of online harms — removing Section 230 lowers a statutory barrier defendants often invoke, making it easier (in some cases) to bring civil claims against intermediaries for third‑party content.
- State and federal prosecutors — the bill eliminates statutory references that previously limited criminal exposure for intermediaries, giving prosecutors clearer footing to pursue charges tied to distribution or facilitation of illegal content where intermediaries played a role.
- Intellectual‑property claimants and brand owners — replacing Section 230‑based references in the Lanham Act and related IP statutes removes a barrier that defendants sometimes used to escape claims tied to user‑uploaded infringing or confusing content.
- Plaintiffs’ lawyers and litigation finance participants — the removal of the immunity is likely to make intermediaries a more attractive defendant class, expanding the pool of potential targets for civil suits.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online platforms and hosting providers (large and small) — they lose the statutory immunity that limited publisher‑style liability, increasing exposure to defamation, tort, and some criminal claims and requiring new compliance and legal-defense spending.
- Libraries, schools, and nonprofits that provide internet access — these entities are included in the bill’s definition edits and may face greater legal uncertainty and compliance burdens when they host or enable user contributions.
- Courts and the federal justice system — an expected rise in suit volume and novel questions about statutory interpretation will increase docket pressure and require judges to develop fresh case law on intermediary liability.
- Small‑scale community platforms and open‑source hosts — lacking the resources to absorb litigation risk, many small operators may need to curtail user content features, outsource moderation, or exit the market entirely.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus functional internet infrastructure: Congress trades away a broad statutory immunity intended to protect an open, distributed internet and to permit private moderation choices in order to increase legal accountability for harms tied to third‑party content—but doing so risks over‑deterring speech, pushing moderation toward removal or pre‑publication filtering, and imposing heavy litigation and compliance costs that could shrink the diversity of online services.
The bill creates immediate, wide‑ranging legal uncertainty without providing transitional guidance. Repealing Section 230 removes a statutory baseline courts have used to shape intermediary‑liability doctrine for thirty years.
But the text does not articulate the standard that should replace it—there is no new safe harbor, no explicit test for when a platform becomes a publisher, and no limiting language to confine criminal exposure. That absence hands considerable interpretive work to courts and prosecutors, which will create uneven outcomes in early litigation and uneven incentives for platforms across jurisdictions.
The relocation of definitional language into section 223(i) and the piecemeal replacement of cross‑references also generate doctrinal ambiguity. Courts will have to decide whether the new statutory map preserves the old scope of ‘‘interactive computer service’’ or narrows or expands it, and whether references to 223(i) were intended to import the same protections or to deprive intermediaries of them.
Additionally, because the bill amends criminal statutes and civil statutes alike, intermediaries face both civil exposure and potential criminal risk for similar conduct—raising separation‑of‑powers, due process, and First Amendment questions about chilling lawful speech and moderation. Finally, the absence of a phase‑in risks disproportionate disruption for small and nonprofit operators that lack the legal budgets of major platforms, potentially concentrating online services among larger firms that can underwrite litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.