This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact if you have any questions about the archive site.



As part of the President's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, and as a result of the Department's long standing review of Section 230, the Department has put together the following legislative package to reform Section 230. The proposal focuses on the two big areas of concern that were highlighted by victims, businesses, and other stakeholders in the conversations and meetings the Department held to discuss the issue.  First, it addresses unclear and inconsistent moderation practices that limit speech and go beyond the text of the existing statute. Second, it addresses the proliferation of illicit and harmful content online that leaves victims without any civil recourse. Taken together, the Department's legislative package provides a clear path forward on modernizing Section 230 to encourage a safer and more open internet.

Cover Letter: A letter to Congress explaining the need for Section 230 reform and how the Department proposes to reform it.

Redline: A copy of the existing law with the Department's proposed changes in redline.

Section by Section: An accompanying document to the redline that provides a detailed description and purpose for each edit to the existing statute.

Areas Ripe For Section 230 Reform

The Department identified four areas ripe for reform:

1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content
The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. 

a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out.  First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.  The title of Section 230’s immunity provision—“Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material”—makes clear that Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect responsible online platforms.  It therefore makes little sense to immunize from civil liability an online platform that purposefully facilitates or solicits third-party content or activity that would violate federal criminal law. 

b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that address particularly egregious content, including (1) child exploitation and sexual abuse, (2) terrorism, and (3) cyber-stalking.  These targeted carve-outs would halt the over-expansion of Section 230 immunity and enable victims to seek civil redress in causes of action far afield from the original purpose of the statute.

c. Case-Specific Carve-outs for Actual Knowledge or Court Judgments.  Third, the Department supports reforms to make clear that Section 230 immunity does not apply in a specific case where a platform had actual knowledge or notice that the third party content at issue violated federal criminal law or where the platform was provided with a court judgment that content is unlawful in any respect.

2. Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content
A second category reform would increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from harmful and illicit conduct.  These reforms would make clear that the immunity provided by Section 230 does not apply to civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government.  Civil enforcement by the federal government is an important complement to criminal prosecution.

3. Promoting Competition
A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity.  Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players.  It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.

4. Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency
A fourth category of potential reforms is intended to clarify the text and original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users.

a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2).  First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.”  This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” 

b. Provide Definition of Good Faith.  Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of “good faith,” which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others.  Clarifying the meaning of "good faith" should encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users, rather than hide behind blanket Section 230 protections.

c. Explicitly Overrule Stratton Oakmont to Avoid Moderator’s Dilemma.  Third, the Department proposes clarifying that a platform’s removal of content pursuant to Section 230(c)(2) or consistent with its terms of service does not, on its own, render the platform a publisher or speaker for all other content on its service.

Overview of Department of Justice Actions on Section 230

The Department of Justice’s review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has included a number of different components, including:

1. Key Takeaways.  The Department distilled lessons learned from its engagement and research in its Key Takeaways and Recommendations, which outline a set of key principles, specific areas for reform, and ideas for further consideration.

2. Public Workshop.  On February 19, 2020 the Department held a public workshop on Section 230 titled “Section 230: Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability,” bringing together thought-leaders from diverse viewpoints.  See Section 230 Workshop Livestream; Section 230 Workshop Agenda; Section 230 Workshop Summary

3. Expert Roundtable.  In the afternoon of February 19, the Department also hosted a Chatham House Rule roundtable with additional experts and thought-leaders to further discuss Section 230 and potential reforms.  See Section 230 Workshop Summary; Biographies of Experts

4. Written Submissions.  Participants in the morning Workshop and afternoon Roundtable were also invited to submit short written statements with their views on Section 230, which the Department reviewed. See Participant Written Submissions

5. Industry Listening Sessions.  Following the Workshop, the Department met individually with a diverse group of businesses that had attended the public event or otherwise expressed interest in Section 230.  Meetings were private and confidential to foster frank discussions about their use of Section 230 and thoughts on potential reform.