[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 573
To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to limit the
immunity of providers and users of interactive computer services under
such section, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2023
Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to limit the
immunity of providers and users of interactive computer services under
such section, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Curbing Abuse and Saving Expression
In Technology Act'' or the ``CASE-IT Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF SECTION 230 IMMUNITY.
(a) In General.--Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Exceptions relating to illegal, exploitive, or
harmful content.--
``(A) In general.--During a period described in
subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
provider or user of an interactive computer service
that creates, develops, posts, materially contributes
to, or induces another person to create, develop, post,
or materially contribute to illegal online content.
``(B) Certain contact between adult and minor.--
During a period described in subparagraph (D),
paragraph (1) shall not apply to a provider of an
interactive computer service that knowingly permits or
facilitates an adult having contact through an
interactive computer service of such provider with an
individual that such adult knows or believes to be a
minor, if such contact involves any matter containing
explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of
sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual
excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended
to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either such
adult or such minor.
``(C) Content that is indecent, obscene, or
otherwise harmful to minors.--During a period described
in subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
provider or user of an interactive computer service
that permits or facilitates the distribution of content
that--
``(i) is indecent, obscene, or otherwise
harmful to minors; and
``(ii) is made readily accessible to minors
by the failure of such provider or user to
implement a system designed to effectively
screen users who are minors from accessing such
content, to the extent feasible using
technology available at the time of such
distribution.
``(D) Period of loss of immunity.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), a period described in
this subparagraph is--
``(i) any 1-year period beginning on the
date on which the provider engages in conduct
described in such subparagraph; or
``(ii) in the case of such conduct that
continues for more than 1 day, any 1-year
period beginning on the date on which the
provider ceases such conduct.
``(E) Rule of construction.--This paragraph shall
be broadly construed to advance the purposes of this
section for the deployment of new technologies and
policies to block or filter offensive content such as
indecency, obscenity, pornography, or sexually explicit
content so as to prevent any such content from being
readily accessible to minors.
``(4) Exception for stifling free expression.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) shall
not apply to a provider of an interactive computer
service that is in the business or practice of
communicating user-generated content during any period
during which such provider--
``(i) is dominant in its market; and
``(ii) makes content moderation decisions
pursuant to policies or practices that are not
reasonably consistent with the First Amendment
to the Constitution.
``(B) Rule of construction.--This paragraph shall
be broadly construed to advance the purposes of this
section in encouraging the growth of the internet as a
forum for a true diversity of discourse, unique
opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity, where lawful
political, religious, cultural, social, scientific, and
other online content can flourish without
discrimination based on viewpoint.
``(5) Private right of action.--
``(A) In general.--If a provider of an interactive
computer service that is dominant in its market bans,
blocks, down-ranks, demonetizes in its advertising, or
otherwise subjects to similar adverse treatment the
content of any information content provider that uses
an interactive computer service of such dominant
provider by reason of the failure of such dominant
provider to make content moderation decisions pursuant
to policies or practices that are reasonably consistent
with the First Amendment to the Constitution, such
information content provider may bring a civil action
in an appropriate State court or an appropriate
district court of the United States against such
dominant provider to obtain the relief described in
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Relief.--
``(i) In general.--An information content
provider that prevails in a civil action under
subparagraph (A) may obtain the following
relief:
``(I) The greater of--
``(aa) compensatory
damages, including both
personal and business economic
loss; or
``(bb) liquidated damages
in the amount of $500,000 for
each incident of adverse
treatment described in
subparagraph (A).
``(II) Punitive damages, in the
case of a reckless failure of the
provider of the interactive computer
service to make content moderation
decisions pursuant to policies or
practices that are reasonably
consistent with the First Amendment to
the Constitution.
``(ii) Treble damages.--In the case of a
willful or knowing failure of the provider of
the interactive computer service to make
content moderation decisions pursuant to
policies or practices that are reasonably
consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution, the information content provider
may obtain, instead of the amount determined
under clause (i)(I), three times such amount.
``(6) Certification regarding market dominance and content
moderation policies and practices.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the
Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General shall
promulgate regulations to establish a process under
which a provider of an interactive computer service
with net assets or annual net revenue exceeding
$500,000,000 may apply for a review and certification
by the Federal Trade Commission, acting with the
concurrence of the Attorney General--
``(i) that such provider is not dominant in
its market; or
``(ii) if such provider is determined to be
dominant in its market under clause (i), that
the policies and practices of such dominant
provider relating to content moderation, as
applied to information content providers using
the interactive computer service or interactive
computer services of such dominant provider,
are reasonably consistent with the First
Amendment to the Constitution.
``(B) Effect of certification.--A certification
under subparagraph (A) may, in the discretion of the
trial court, be admissible in any civil action or
criminal prosecution in which it is asserted that
paragraph (4) applies to the provider to which such
certification relates, or in any civil action brought
under paragraph (5) against such provider, but such
certification shall not be determinative on the issues
described in clauses (i) and (ii) of such
subparagraph.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Dominant in its market.--The term `dominant in its
market' means, with respect to a provider of an interactive
computer service, that such provider has gained substantial,
sustained market power over any competitors. Actual monopoly
control over a market is not required to satisfy the preceding
sentence.
``(6) Reasonably consistent with the first amendment to the
constitution.--The term `reasonably consistent with the First
Amendment to the Constitution' means, with respect to the
policies and practices of a provider of an interactive computer
service relating to content moderation, that such provider
conforms such policies and practices to established law under
the First Amendment to the Constitution applicable to state
actors, regardless of whether or not such provider is a state
actor, to the extent feasible taking into consideration the
developing capabilities and complexities of technology and the
unique characteristics of online communication platforms.
``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who is
under 18 years of age.
``(8) Harmful to minors.--The term `harmful to minors'
means, with respect to content, that such content contains a
description or representation of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual
excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that--
``(A) predominantly appeals to the prurient,
shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
``(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards
in the adult community with respect to what is suitable
material for minors; and
``(C) is utterly without redeeming social
importance for minors.
``(9) Adult.--The term `adult' means an individual who is
18 years of age or older.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to conduct by a provider of an interactive computer
service (as defined in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230(f))) that occurs after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
<all>