H.R. 7045House119th Congress (2025-2027)In Committee

PROTECT Act

AI-Generated Summary

Updated January 29, 2026 at 5:22 AM UTC

The PROTECT Act repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently shields online platforms from liability for user‑generated content. It replaces the Section 230 definition of “interactive computer service” with a new definition and updates a wide range of other federal statutes that previously referenced Section 230, so they now refer to the new definition. The changes affect internet service providers, social‑media platforms, other online services, and any legal actions that involve those services.

Key Provisions

Repeals Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.
Creates a new definition of “interactive computer service” covering any information service that provides multi‑user access to a computer server, including internet access and services offered by libraries or schools.
Amends numerous statutes (e.g., the Trademark Act, Title 17 copyright law, Title 18 criminal law, the Controlled Substances Act, the Webb‑Kenyon Act, and others) to remove references to Section 230 and replace them with the new definition in Section 223(i).
Sets the effective date of all amendments to the date the Act is enacted.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

HouseIntro Referral Latest Action

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Energy and Commerce Committee

January 13, 2026

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

January 13, 2026

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Energy and Commerce Committee

January 13, 2026

Floor Debate

1 member

What members said about H.R. 7045 on the floor

1 Republican

Rep. Jimmy PatronisR-FL-1 · Feb 3, 2026

Mr. Speaker, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act insulates ``Big Tech'' from most liability for the digital fentanyl promoted on their sites. Time and time again, drugs are sold, sexually suggestive and/or explicit content is posted without consent, algorithms promote and normalize suicide and self-harm, and chatbots tell children how to cope with their emotions. All of these things are harming our vulnerable and impressionable youth. Chatbot usage is now so widespread that nearly three quarters of teens have used AI companions, and of these users approximately one in three have used them for social interactions and relationships to include the more than one in ten who sought emotional or mental health support.

That is why I proudly introduced H.R. 7045, the Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust (PROTECT) Act, to immediately repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and to restore accountability for online platforms.

The question we must ask ourselves is: can there be any accountability when there is no liability. The answer is no. Without liability there is no accountability. When was the last time you saw revenge porn or fentanyl marketed on a billboard? The answer is you have not seen it because of a well-crafted system that punishes wrongdoing. Why do we see this content online constantly? The answer is Section 230.

Let us stop pretending like the internet is new, novel, and worthy of special treatment when 96 percent Americans access it. When the law passed in 1996, the internet was in its early days long before the average American spent nearly half the month online and nearly one in six sales occurred online. Congress can no longer ignore the fact that the average American spends nearly 60,000 percent more time online than during the year of the law's passage.

To be clear, this law lets the large companies that dominate the areas where Americans spend almost half their time generally face no consequences for the content these platforms share, actively promote, and generate billions from. Worse yet, the law also deprives states of the power to protect their own citizens through state law. I am deeply troubled by alarming national trends and the proliferation of AI chatbots, providing advice to our children. Increasingly, children have been suffering, and parents have been unable to pursue an effective means of encouraging the industry to police itself.

Sadly, one in five children receive an unwanted sexual solicitation annually online. Despite Section 230 continuing to insulate online predation, I am proud of the work multiple sheriff offices, as well as state and federal agencies did to arrest 13 suspects during an online child sexual predator operation in my district and in surrounding communities last fall.

Imagine how much more ``Big Tech'' would be willing to do to shut down the predator superhighway if they faced actual consequences. While I could fill hundreds of pages with stories about how social media is harming our youth and supplement it daily, I want to focus on stories from my district and my home state of Florida.

As a successful Section 230 defense often results in the court granting dismissal early in the litigation, the facts are often accepted as plead. In these instances, the excerpts below reflect the claims as plead by the victims and their families.

Only Fans Parent Company Faces No Liability for Allegedly Profiting Off

Rape of a Miami Teenager

In April 2022, Michelson Romelus and Bendjy Charles

allegedly filmed each other on video while they forcible

raped and sodomized the teenage victim in Miami. Several

weeks later, the footage was allegedly edited and uploaded to

OnlyFans.com where the footage was allegedly sold as part of

a monthly subscription. Despite these facts, the case was

recommended for dismissal based on Section 230, meaning the

alleged victim could not recover from the platform.

Omegle Immune From Liability for Allegedly Connecting a Minor With a

Predator Who Coerced an 11-Year-Old Into Undressing

On March 31, 2020, an 11-year-old girl and user of the

Omegle platform, which allowed users to connect with people

randomly and anonymously allegedly connected the child with a

predator. This predator allegedly informed the victim that he

knew where she lived and provided specific details about

where she lived to prove it. He allegedly threatened to hack

the victim and her family's devices if she did not disrobe

and comply with his demands. The predator allegedly filmed

the incident. The case was dismissed by the Court as the

victim's family ``failed to plead claims that withstand

Omegle's Section 230 immunity.'' The platform has since

ceased operations.

OfferUp Found Not Liable for Allegedly Connecting Buyer With Seller Who

Robbed and Shot Buyer

On June 13, 2018, the victim allegedly arranged to meet

with the seller in Palmetto, Florida to consummate the

contemplated sale of goods. The meeting was allegedly setup

in response to a post on the OfferUp platform. When the

victim arrived, he was allegedly robbed and shot multiple

times. The Court concluded that Section 230 barred the claim

against OfferUp.

Craigslist Faces No Accountability for Allegedly Facilitating Sex

Trafficking of a 15-Year-Old

Back in 2008, a then fifteen-year-old girl began to

allegedly be forcibly trafficked for commercial sex, which

allegedly continued for a decade across Miami-Dade County.

She was allegedly frequently expected to perform commercial

sexual acts for between eleven and fourteen different men

daily. The traffickers allegedly used craigslist's ``erotic

services'', ``adult services'', ``massage services'',

``casual encounters'', and``personals'' categories to display

their posts and to send emails on the platform to negotiate

commercial sex sales. Her traffickers allegedly posted

sexually explicit, nude and partially nude photos as well as

coded words to advertise commercial sex. At times, messages

allegedly sent on the platform indicated that the victim was

underage. To use their platform, the traffickers allegedly

paid a fee to craigslist who never rejected or removed any

posts.

Although the Court explained that ``some of her allegations

demonstrate craigslist's appalling lack of diligence in

preventing trafficking, not a single one establishes that

craigslist created or developed the trafficking content.''

After an extensive legal battle, the Court ultimately found

craigslist not liable based on a Section 230 defense.

Mother Whose 11-year-old Son Was an Alleged Victim of Sexual Battery

Denied Relief After a Four-Year Fight

Following an alleged sexual assault of legal guardian's 11-

year-old son and two other minor males in 1994, Richard Lee

Russell was criminally convicted for events relating to those

alleged in the complaint. This sexual predator under Florida

Law allegedly solicited the sale of the photographs and video

of this assault in America Online, Inc., chat rooms.

Ultimately, this case was appealed all the way to the Florida

Supreme Court. The mother was denied civil relief from

America Online, Inc., after the Court found Section 230

preempted Florida law.

Emerging Threat of AI Chatbots

Beyond platforms serving as a predator superhighway,

today's parents must contend with AI chatbots that are

grooming children and pretending to be licensed therapists.

For example, a 14-year-old boy, after allegedly prolonged

conversations with an AI chatbot, tragically ended his life

near Orlando, Florida. His brave mother recently testified in

the Senate Judiciary Committee that the company Character

Technologies, Inc., would not disclose to her many of her

child's last words. Imagine a parent not being allowed to

know what was going on through her child's mind in his final

minutes.

For all these reasons, Congress must swiftly pass the PROTECT Act to keep our children safe and to restore accountability to the internet.

Rep. Jimmy PatronisR-FL-1 · Jan 22, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7045, the PROTECT Act, because it is time to repeal section 230 and hold Big Tech accountable for the harm being done to our children.…

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued January 13, 2026

119th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 7045

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 13, 2026

Mr. Patronis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust Act or the PROTECT Act.

Repeal of section 230

(a)

In general

Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is repealed.

(b)

Conforming amendments

(1)

Communications Act of 1934

The Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended—

(A)

in section 223—

(i)

in subsection (h)(1)—

(I)

by striking subparagraph (D); and

(II)

by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and

(ii)

in subsection (i), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(2)

The term interactive computer service means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

; and

(B)

in section 231(b)(4), by striking or section 230.

(2)

Trademark Act of 1946

Section 45 of the Act entitled An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly known as the Trademark Act of 1946) (15 U.S.C. 1127), is amended, in the undesignated provision relating to the term Internet, by striking has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)) and inserting means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(3)

Title 17, United States Code

Section 1401 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (g).

(4)

Title 18, United States Code

Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(A)

in section 1462, by striking (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934) each place it appears and inserting (as defined in section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i)));

(B)

in section 1465, by striking (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934) and inserting (as defined in section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i)));

(C)

in section 2257(h)(2)(B)(v), by striking , except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication; and

(D)

in section 2421A—

(i)

in subsection (a), by striking (as such term is defined in defined in section 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))) and inserting (as such term is defined in section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i))); and

(ii)

in subsection (b), by striking (as such term is defined in defined in section 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))) and inserting (as such term is defined in section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i))).

(5)

Controlled Substances Act

Section 401(h)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(h)(3)(A)(iii)(II)) is amended by striking , except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication.

(6)

Webb-Kenyon Act

Section 3(b)(1) of the Act entitled An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases, approved March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the Webb-Kenyon Act) (27 U.S.C. 122b(b)(1)), is amended by striking (as defined in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)) and inserting (as defined in section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i))).

(7)

Title 28, United States Code

Section 4102 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(A)

by striking subsection (c); and

(B)

in subsection (e)—

(i)

by striking construed to and all that follows through affect and inserting construed to affect; and

(ii)

by striking defamation; or and all that follows and inserting defamation..

(8)

Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022

Section 5933(7) of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 (Public Law 117–263) is amended by striking section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) and inserting section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i)).

(9)

Title 31, United States Code

Section 5362(6) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)) and inserting section 223(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(i)).

(10)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act

Section 157 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 941) is amended—

(A)

by striking subsection (e); and

(B)

by redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as subsections (e) through (i), respectively.

(c)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.