In a significant legislative move this week, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress introduced bills aimed at repealing Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, a cornerstone of modern internet law that provides broad liability protections for online platforms. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) filed H.R. 6746, the Sunset to Reform Section 230 Act in the House, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced S. 3546 in the Senate, both proposing that Section 230’s shield for internet companies be eliminated on a set timeline.
What Section 230 Is and Why It Matters
Section 230, enacted in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act, has long protected online services from being treated as the publisher or speaker of content provided by users, granting immunity from many forms of civil liability for third-party content and enabling platforms to moderate content without facing lawsuits. Supporters say this legal shield helped the internet flourish by reducing legal risk for platforms from the earliest days of social media to today’s largest online services..
House Bill Introduced by Rep. Hageman Would Sunset Section 230
On December 16, 2025, Rep. Harriet Hageman introduced H.R. 6746, the Sunset to Reform Section 230 Act, which proposes to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act by adding a new subsection that would strip the provision of legal force after December 31, 2026. Under the bill’s text, Section 230 “shall have no force or effect” after that date, effectively setting a sunset deadline for the landmark statute.
Proponents of Hageman’s bill characterize Section 230 reform not merely as regulatory tweaking but as a necessary recalibration of how platforms are accountable for what occurs on their services. In statements tied to the bill, Hageman warned that “outside interests” would oppose reform and stressed the need to force the issue through a reauthorization process.
Advocates across the political spectrum have long criticized Section 230 for different reasons: conservatives contend it has allowed perceived political bias by social media companies, while some liberals and child safety advocates argue it enables platforms to profit from harmful material without adequate accountability.
Senate Bill by Sen. Lindsey Graham Also Targets a Section 230 Sunset
Following the House’s move, Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced S. 3546, legislation that likewise calls for the repeal of Section 230, to take effect two years after enactment. While specifics of the text are circulating through congressional tracking services, the core aim mirrors Hageman’s approach—phasing out Section 230’s liability protections to compel online platforms to change how they operate or face traditional litigation.
Graham’s legislative effort has drawn bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate, including figures like Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), signaling a cross-aisle interest in changing the legal framework for internet platforms. Senate supporters argue that removing Section 230 immunity would empower victims of online harms to pursue legal remedies and force platforms to take stronger responsibility for content on their services.
Legislative Strategy: Sunset as Leverage for Reform
Rather than advocating an immediate, abrupt repeal of Section 230, both Hageman’s and Graham’s bills employ sunset provisions—delayed expiration dates—to create political leverage. By setting a deadline for the law’s expiration, lawmakers hope to pressure tech companies and stakeholders to negotiate reforms before the liability protections disappear entirely. Advocates on both sides of the aisle view the sunset timeline as a strategic tool for extracting concessions from platforms resistant to change.
Reactions and Industry Concerns
The movement to repeal Section 230 has drawn varied responses. Supporters argue repeal would open avenues for legal accountability and reduce the prevalence of harmful online content. Critics, including many in the tech industry and civil liberties communities, warn that undoing Section 230 could lead to over-censorship, stifle online expression, and expose even small platforms to crushing litigation risk.
Some industry observers have noted that certain sectors—such as adult content platforms that rely heavily on user-generated content—would face profound operational and legal challenges without Section 230 protections. Those concerns highlight how deeply the statute is woven into the fabric of modern internet services, from large social networks to niche community sites.
What’s Next
H.R. 6746 has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, while S. 3546 begins its legislative journey in the Senate. As the 119th Congress moves forward, the debate over Section 230’s future is likely to be a central flashpoint in broader discussions about online speech, platform liability, and digital regulation. With both bills proposing structured sunsets rather than immediate repeal, the coming months could see intense negotiations among lawmakers, tech companies, civil liberties groups, and other stakeholders over how or whether Section 230 should be reformed or replaced.
