Who introduced the new legislation to repeal Section 230?

California Democrat Mark DeSaulnier and Florida Republican Jimmy Patronis introduced the new legislation, HR 10332, titled the “Sunset Section 230 Act.”

Has similar legislation to repeal Section 230 advanced previously?

None of the previous bills aimed at removing Section 230 protections have advanced through the legislative process since their introduction.

DeSaulnier, Patronis Introduce Bill to Repeal Section 230

Q: What is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?

Section 230 is a provision that protects interactive computer services, including adult platforms, from liability for user-generated content.

Q: When would the repeal proposed by the "Sunset Section 230 Act" take effect?

The bill proposes that the repeal would take effect two years after its enactment.

Q: What is the stated purpose of repealing Section 230?

Proponents argue that repealing Section 230 would allow Americans to bring legal action against big tech companies responsible for online harm and protect social media users, particularly children, from harmful content.

Reps. DeSaulnier and Patronis introduce the “Sunset Section 230 Act” to repeal Section 230, aiming to hold tech companies accountable for user content. This bill includes a two-year sunset provision.

Two members of Congress introduced new legislation on Thursday, September 11, 2026, to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision that protects interactive computer services, including adult platforms, from liability for user-generated content.

California Democrat Mark DeSaulnier and Florida Republican Jimmy Patronis are co-sponsors of HR 10332, titled the “Sunset Section 230 Act.” This bill proposes that the repeal would take effect two years after its enactment. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Legislative Push for Repeal

A press release from DeSaulnier’s office described Section 230 as “obsolete and dangerous.” The release asserted that repealing Section 230 would allow Americans to “bring legal action against big tech companies responsible for online harm.” Section 230 was originally created in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act to encourage innovation and growth among new social media companies. The bill’s proponents argue that 30 years later, with these companies having become powerful, Section 230 has become obsolete and dangerous. The proposed two-year sunset provision aims to provide reform to tech policy, protecting social media users, particularly children, from harmful content and holding companies responsible for demonstrated injury to users of their platforms.

This proposal is one of several pending bills aimed at removing Section 230 protections. None of these previous bills have advanced through the legislative process since their introduction. The "Sunset Section 230 Act" shares its name with a bill Patronis introduced in January, which has not seen movement since its introduction. The inclusion of "sunset" provisions, rather than an immediate repeal, is seen by some legislators as a strategy to gain concessions from stakeholders who oppose changes to Section 230. In March, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing that focused on potential changes to Section 230 rather than an outright repeal.

Separately, on Friday, December 12, 2025, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) stated he was moving to file a bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230. Senator Whitehouse indicated that work on the bipartisan bill had been ongoing for a long time and that it was time to make a decision. He invited members of the committee to join the bipartisan bill.

Implications for the Adult Industry

Industry advocates have expressed concerns that modifying Section 230 could lead to specific "carve-outs." These carve-outs could follow the precedent of FOSTA/SESTA, which revoked liability protections for sites that "unlawfully promote and facilitate" prostitution or sex trafficking. Advocates fear that a carve-out targeting or including the adult industry would make adult sites liable for user-generated content, potentially leading to an increase in civil lawsuits.

While many such lawsuits might ultimately be defended on First Amendment grounds, Section 230 currently offers a procedural advantage. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick has noted that the law "provides a procedural advantage in getting vexatious, frivolous nuisance lawsuits shut down much faster than they would be otherwise." Without Section 230 protections, larger "Big Tech" platforms would likely have more resources to defend their moderation choices compared to smaller companies.

The continued relevance of Section 230 for adult sites was highlighted last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling. This ruling affirmed that Section 230 protects EU-based WebGroup Czech Republic (WGCZ), the parent company of XVideos, XNXX, BangBros, and GirlsGoneWild, from liability in a case involving user-uploaded CSAM on its tube sites. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), a conservative anti-pornography organization that has advocated for Section 230 repeal, supported the case against WGCZ.

The potential for adult platforms to be targeted under a weakened Section 230 is further suggested by attitudes within the current administration. Project 2025’s "Mandate for Leadership" blueprint, which has served as a guide for Trump administration priorities, called for abandoning Section 230’s current approach. The same document also included a call to criminalize all adult content, asserting that pornography "has no claim to First Amendment protection."

Key Facts

Representatives Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) introduced HR 10332, the “Sunset Section 230 Act,” on September 11, 2026.
The bill proposes to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, with the repeal taking effect two years after enactment.
Section 230 provides immunity for interactive computer services regarding third-party user-generated content.
DeSaulnier’s office stated that Section 230 is “obsolete and dangerous” and its repeal would allow legal action against "big tech companies responsible for online harm."
Industry advocates are concerned that changes to Section 230 could lead to carve-outs, making adult sites liable for user-generated content.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently upheld Section 230 protection for WebGroup Czech Republic (WGCZ) in a case involving user-uploaded content.