“Bad internet bills” is the label a coalition of digital rights groups — led by Fight for the Future, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU — uses for a growing set of federal proposals they argue would expand online surveillance, weaken encryption, or restrict lawful speech under the banner of child safety or national security.1Electronic Frontier Foundation. You Can Help Stop These Bad Internet Bills The campaign launched in 2023 around five bills and has expanded since; as of late 2025 it reported facilitating more than 500,000 calls and emails to Congress through its hub at badinternetbills.com.2Bad Internet Bills. Bad Internet Bills Campaign One of the targeted bills, the Take It Down Act, has been signed into law. The rest are at various stages in the 119th Congress.
Which Bills Are on the List
Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)
KOSA would require online platforms to adopt policies preventing certain harms to minors — sexual exploitation, violence, deceptive financial practices — and let users opt out of recommendation algorithms.3CQ Roll Call. Kids Online Safety Bills Move Forward From Senate, House Panel The EFF and ACLU argue the “duty of care” language is vague enough to push platforms toward broad preemptive censorship rather than risk liability.4ACLU. Revised Kids Online Safety Act Is an Improvement but Congress Must Still Address First Amendment Concerns LGBTQ advocates have warned the law could be used to pressure platforms into suppressing content about gender-affirming care, reproductive health, and LGBTQ identity.5The 19th. Why Some LGBTQ Groups Oppose the Current Kids Online Safety Act A 2024 revision narrowed the duty of care, shifted enforcement from state attorneys general to the FTC, and tied harm to the DSM; some LGBTQ groups withdrew their opposition after those changes, but EFF, ACLU, CDT, and Fight for the Future did not.6Lawfare. The Kids Online Safety Act and the State of Tech Policy
EARN IT Act
The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act would strip Section 230 immunity for federal and state laws relating to child sexual abuse material, and set up a national commission on online child exploitation prevention.7U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Graham, Blumenthal Reintroduce EARN IT Act Reintroduced repeatedly by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, it has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee twice unanimously but never reached a floor vote. Critics say it would effectively require scanning of private messages and files, undermining end-to-end encryption.1Electronic Frontier Foundation. You Can Help Stop These Bad Internet Bills
STOP CSAM Act
Reintroduced in 2025 as S. 1829, the STOP CSAM Act creates criminal and civil liability for providers who “promote” or “facilitate” child sexual abuse material using a recklessness standard, and adds a Section 230 carve-out.8Congress.gov. S.1829 – STOP CSAM Act of 2025 The bill offers an affirmative defense where removal is “technologically impossible” without compromising encryption. The EFF argues that defense is functionally useless because it forces providers into costly litigation and effectively pushes them toward client-side scanning, which the group says breaks end-to-end encryption.9Electronic Frontier Foundation. Oppose the STOP CSAM Act Senator Ron Wyden has called the bill “dangerous,” arguing weakened encryption would make it easier, not harder, for predators to exploit victims.10Sen. Ron Wyden. Wyden Objects to Bill That Would Threaten Encryption
Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act
Named after teenagers who died after buying fentanyl online, this bill would require social media companies and communication service providers to report suspected illegal drug sales to law enforcement. It was reintroduced in July 2025 by Senators Chuck Grassley, Roger Marshall, and Jeanne Shaheen.11U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley, Bipartisan Colleagues Take Aim at Social Media Drug Trafficking The coalition objects that it would turn messaging and cloud providers into what it describes as DEA informants without warrants or meaningful user protections.12Common Dreams. Digital Rights Groups Urge Congress to Drop Bad Internet Bills
RESTRICT Act
Originally introduced during the push to ban TikTok, the RESTRICT Act would give the federal government broad power to restrict or ban apps deemed national security threats. Coalition members argue the language is sweeping enough that it could criminalize routine activities like using a VPN or side-loading applications.1Electronic Frontier Foundation. You Can Help Stop These Bad Internet Bills
Take It Down Act
The Take It Down Act was signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025. It criminalizes the non-consensual publication of intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes, and requires platforms to remove such material within 48 hours of a valid request.13U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. Sen. Cruz Applauds Presidential Signing of the Take It Down Act Into Law Violations carry up to two years in prison, or three for offenses involving minors, and the FTC enforces the takedown requirement.14Hunton Andrews Kurth. U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act The EFF argues the definition of “sexually explicit conduct” is too broad and the 48-hour window leaves no room for verification, inviting bad-faith requests. In a March 2025 address to Congress, President Trump said he intended to use the law himself, remarking that “nobody gets treated worse than I do online.”15Electronic Frontier Foundation. Trump Calls on Congress to Pass Overbroad Take It Down Act So He Can Use It to Censor
SCREEN Act
The Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act, introduced in February 2025 by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mary Miller, would require commercial pornographic websites to implement age verification.16Sen. Mike Lee. Senator Lee Introduces SCREEN Act for 119th Congress Fight for the Future opposes it on the grounds that age verification mandates functionally require everyone to show ID to use the internet.2Bad Internet Bills. Bad Internet Bills Campaign
Section 230 Sunset Bills
Several 119th Congress proposals would weaken or eliminate Section 230, the law that shields platforms from liability for user content. The Sunset Section 230 Act (S. 3546), introduced in December 2025, would repeal the law two years after enactment; a companion House bill, H.R. 6746, takes the same approach.17Congress.gov. S.3546 – Sunset Section 230 Act18Congress.gov. H.R.6746 – Sunset To Reform Section 230 Act Senators Graham and Durbin have signaled a bipartisan bill that would sunset the law on January 1, 2027, unless Congress passes a replacement. At least ten Section 230 proposals were introduced in the first months of the 119th Congress.19Lawfare. What Has Congress Been Doing on Section 230
SECURE Data Act
Framed as comprehensive federal privacy legislation, the SECURE Data Act (H.R. 8413) was introduced in 2026 by Representatives John Joyce and Brett Guthrie.20StateScoop. House Subcommittee SECURE Data Act Preempts State Privacy Laws The Electronic Privacy Information Center called it “worse than any privacy law we have evaluated.” EPIC objects that the bill relies on notice-and-choice consent, contains no private right of action, delays consideration of universal opt-out mechanisms for at least three years, and carries preemption language that EPIC says would wipe out comprehensive privacy laws in more than 20 states, all 50 state data breach notification laws, and targeted rules like the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.21EPIC. America Needs a Strong Privacy Law — the SECURE Data Act Isn’t It
Where Each Bill Stands
The Take It Down Act is law. KOSA has more than 75 Senate co-sponsors but remains stalled because Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz has not scheduled a markup; the House version advanced through committee in March 2026 but has not reached the floor.22Children and Screens. Policy Update February 2026 On March 5, 2026, the Senate unanimously passed its version of COPPA 2.0, which expands the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to cover minors under 17, while House Chairman Brett Guthrie pulled the House version from markup for continued negotiation.3CQ Roll Call. Kids Online Safety Bills Move Forward From Senate, House Panel The same session sent the KIDS Act (H.R. 7757), Sammy’s Law, and the App Store Accountability Act to a full House vote on party lines.23IAPP. U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Advances KIDS Act to Full House Vote STOP CSAM and Cooper Davis have been reintroduced but face opposition. The Section 230 sunset proposals have not moved past committee referral. The SECURE Data Act is being debated at the subcommittee level.
What the Supreme Court Has Said About Age Verification
In June 2025, the Supreme Court decided Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, upholding a Texas law that requires age verification on commercial pornographic websites. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that the law only incidentally burdens adult speech and survives intermediate scrutiny as an exercise of the state’s traditional power to keep minors from material that is obscene from their perspective.24Supreme Court of the United States. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Justice Kagan dissented, arguing the law should face strict scrutiny because it defines speech by content and imposes real costs on adults exercising their rights.25Harvard Law Review. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
The ruling strengthens the constitutional footing for age verification of sexually explicit content and cuts against several of the coalition’s arguments against the SCREEN Act. Its reach is narrower than it looks, though. The Court grounded the opinion in the specific principle that nonobscene sexually explicit content is “protected as to adults but unprotected as to minors” and distinguished the case from broader precedents like Reno v. ACLU. Bills that try to regulate access to other content — LGBTQ resources, mental health information, or social media generally — face a harder path. The ACLU maintains that KOSA’s design-feature mandates and FTC enforcement amount to unconstitutional censorship even after Paxton.4ACLU. Revised Kids Online Safety Act Is an Improvement but Congress Must Still Address First Amendment Concerns
What the Coalition Supports
The coalition’s position is not blanket opposition to internet legislation. In June 2026, Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden introduced the JAWBONE Act, which targets government pressure on private platforms to censor lawful speech. It creates a federal cause of action against officials who coerce or try to coerce platforms, AI providers, or broadcasters into restricting First Amendment-protected speech, whether or not the censorship happens, and requires federal agencies to publicly disclose their content-removal communications.26U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. Cruz, Wyden Introduce Legislation to Guard First Amendment Speech Rights Against Government Jawboning27CQ Roll Call. Bipartisan Bill Targets Government Censorship Threats The ACLU, FIRE, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Center for Democracy and Technology back the bill. The EFF supports it as well, with the caveat that the drafting must not chill good-faith communication between agencies and platforms.28Electronic Frontier Foundation. New Bill Takes Aim at Government Pressure to Silence Lawful Online Speech
The broader argument the coalition presses is that Congress should stop passing piecemeal restrictions and enact comprehensive federal data privacy legislation targeting the business models behind online harms. Previous bipartisan efforts, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act and the American Privacy Rights Act, stalled in earlier sessions, and the coalition treats the SECURE Data Act as a step backward rather than the reform it says is needed.
How to Weigh In
Fight for the Future runs badinternetbills.com as the campaign’s action hub, where you can look up the current bills, see their status, and send calls or emails to your senators and representative about specific measures.2Bad Internet Bills. Bad Internet Bills Campaign The EFF’s Action Center and the ACLU’s advocacy pages carry parallel alerts on the same bills, along with the organizations’ full-length analyses.