The COLLUDE Act would revise how Section 230 protections apply to providers of interactive computer services (like social media platforms). It adds an affirmative defense that places the burden on a platform to prove it is not an information content provider for disputed content. It also creates a pathway where a platform could lose Section 230 immunity if a government entity (or an entity acting at the government’s request) directs the platform to restrict legitimate political speech and only channels the communication to the platform (not to other entities). There are specific carve-outs: communications for legitimate law enforcement or national security purposes would not trigger this loss of protection. The bill defines what counts as legitimate law enforcement and national security purposes.
Key Points
- 1Reforms Section 230(c) to require an affirmative defense: when a provider is treated as the publisher or speaker of information, the provider must prove it is not an information content provider for that information.
- 2Loss of 230 protections in government-directed censorship: if a government entity (or its agent) directs a provider to restrict material related to political speech, and the communication is sent only to the provider, the provider may lose 230 immunity for that content.
- 3Explicit exceptions for legitimate purposes: communications that serve legitimate law enforcement or national security purposes are not considered to trigger the loss of 230 protection.
- 4Definitions added: the bill defines “legitimate law enforcement purpose” and “national security purpose” to clarify when an agency’s communications count for purposes of the law.
- 5Short title: The act is named the Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act (COLLUDE Act).