What This Bill Does · Plain English
Summary · Congress.gov
Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act or the COLLUDE Act This bill limits federal liability protection, sometimes referred to as Section 230 protection, that generally precludes providers and users of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company) from being held legally responsible for content provided by a third party. Specifically, the bill removes the protection if a provider restricts access to or availability of content containing political speech because of a governmental request unless the request serves a legitimate law enforcement or national security purpose. In addition, the bill changes legal procedures for applying the protection. Currently, the protection serves as broad immunity that typically allows the early dismissal of lawsuits, thereby preempting lawsuits and statutes that impose liability for third-party content. This bill makes the protection an affirmative defense, which means the provider or user must prove that the protection applies before the lawsuit may be dismissed.
Action Timeline
2025-01-09
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
2025-01-09
Introduced in Senate
Frequently Asked Questions
Did S.69 pass?
S.69 is still alive. Current stage: COMMITTEE. Pass likelihood: 30%.
What does S.69 do?
Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act or the COLLUDE Act This bill limits federal liability protection, sometimes referred to as Section 230 protection, that generally precludes providers and users of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company) from being held legally responsible for content provided by a third party. Specifically, the bill removes the protection if a provider restricts access to or availability of content containing political speech because of a governmental request unless the request serves a legitimate law e…
Who sponsored S.69?
S.69 was sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri).
Full Bill Text
119 S69 IS: Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act U.S. Senate 2025-01-09 text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. II 119th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 69 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 9, 2025 Mr. Schmitt introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to address governmental interference in content moderation decisions by providers of interactive computer services, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act or the COLLUDE Act . 2. Content moderation, creation and development, and distribution Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 230 ) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking No provider and inserting the following: (A) In general Subject to subparagraph (B), no provider ; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: (B) Affirmative defense In a criminal or civil action against a provider or user of an interactive computer service that treats the provider or user as the publisher or speaker of any information, the provider or user shall bear the burden of proving that the provider or user is not an information content provider with respect to that information for purposes of subparagraph (A). ; (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting subparagraph (A) ; and (C) by adding at the end the following: (3) Loss of protection in cases of governmental censorship (A) In general Except as provided in subparagraph (B), this subsection shall not apply to a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to or availability of material— (i) in a manner that reasonably appears to express, promote, limit the visibility of, or suppress legitimate political speech, including a discernible viewpoint; and (ii) as a result of a communication that— (I) is sent to the provider by— (aa) a governmental entity; or (bb) a non-governmental entity that is acting at the request or behest of a governmental entity; and (II) the applicable entity under subclause (I) sends only to the provider and not to any other entity. (B) Exception A communication that is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose or a national security purpose shall not be considered to be a communication that is described in subparagraph (A)(ii). ; and (2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following: (5) Legitimate law enforcement purpose The term legitimate law enforcement purpose means, with respect to a communication, that the purpose of the communication is so that a law enforcement agency can, within the lawful authority of that agency, investigate a criminal offense. (6) National security purpose The term national security purpose means, with respect to a communication, that the purpose of the communication relates to— (A) intelligence activities; (B) cryptologic activities that relate to the national security of the United States; (C) command and control of the Armed Forces; (D) equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or a weapons system; or (E) the direct fulfillment of a military or intelligence mission. .
Loading intelligence layer…