HR 117
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair
HR 117 (Bauer-Kahan and Dixon) – As Introduced June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: Section 230 Of The Federal Communications Decency Act Of 1996
SYNOPSIS
Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, the federal law that protects
online platforms from liability for harms arising from third-party content, has been hailed as the
law that created the modern internet, fostering free expression online and allowing an array of
innovative services and spaces to flourish, from search engines to social media. It has also
insulated platforms from liability for harms occurring on their platforms in an array of cases
that shock the conscience.
Thirty years after its enactment, there is growing bipartisan call for reform to the statute. In the
words of Justice Clarence Thomas, “[i]n the platforms’ world, they are fully responsible for
their websites when it results in constitutional protections, but the moment that responsibility
could lead to liability, they can disclaim any obligations and enjoy greater protections from suit
than nearly any other industry.”1
In connection with the Legislature’s pronouncement of June 23rd, 2026, as Social Media Harms
Victim Remembrance Day (ACR 224, Bauer-Kahan, Dixon), this bipartisan resolution calls for
support for the reform effort, specifically by calling on Congress to adopt a pending proposal
introduced by Members of Congress from across the aisle to sunset section 230 over the course
of two years, ensuring that large technology companies that have benefitted from this immunity
shield will participate in good faith efforts to reform the statute in a targeted manner.
The measure is author-sponsored and supported by, among others, Children Now, California
Initiative for Technology & Democracy, Mothers Against Media Addiction, Parents RISE!, and
Parents Together Action. It has no registered opposition.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that no provider or user
of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).)
2) Provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable on
account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of
material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected. (Id. at (c)(2)(A).)
1
Doe ex rel. Roe v. Snap, Inc. (2024) 144 S. Ct. 2493 (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
 HR 117
Page 2
3) Provides that no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any
State or local law that is inconsistent with the provisions described above. (Id. at (e)(3).)
4) Defines for these purposes:
a) “Interactive computer service” as any information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. (Id. at (f)(2).)
b) “Information content provider” as any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in
part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any
other interactive computer service. (Id. at (f)(3).)
THIS MEASURE:
1) Includes the following recitals:
a. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was
intended to create a liability shield for neutral online platforms from most harms
arising from third-party content, helped create the modern internet, fostering free
expression online and allowing an array of innovative services and spaces to flourish,
from search engines to social platforms; and
b. Thirty years after its enactment, this well-intentioned law has become outdated and
has led to destructive real-world consequences by absolving Big Tech companies of
legal responsibility for their own design decisions and their own facilitation of third-
party abuse, which is a protection not available to brick-and-mortar businesses; and
c. Enacted in response to court decisions suggesting that online platforms could face
liability for user-generated content if they engage in any content moderation, Section
230 was intended to promote development of the nascent internet and encourage
“Good Samaritan” efforts by platforms to voluntarily screen objectionable material;
and
d. Section 230(c)(1) provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider,” Section 230(c)(2) protects platforms from
liability for good-faith efforts to restrict access to material that is “obscene, lewd,
lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” and
Section 230(e)(3) preempts enforcement of contrary state laws; and
e. Section 230 was intended to encourage and empower online platforms to self-regulate
harmful and offensive material by immunizing them from liability for decisions made
in the course of responsible content moderation but instead has been used by Big
Tech companies as a license to take a hands-off approach to content moderation and
willfully disregard known abuses on their platforms; and
f. Section 230 was intended to provide protections only for the types of online services
offering users a great deal of control over the information that they receive but instead
 HR 117
Page 3
has been used by Big Tech companies to shield new online products being willfully
designed and deployed in a manner that deprives users of that control; and
g. Courts have interpreted Section 230 expansively, shielding Big Tech companies from
civil liability in a vast range of cases, including ones involving harassment and
stalking, sexual exploitation and abuse, identity theft, scams against seniors,
organized crime, the sale of illegal drugs, child sexual abuse, serial predators on
dating apps, dissemination of child sexual abuse material, online retailers selling
suicide kits, incitement to violence, and terrorist recruitment, and enabled these
market-dominant platforms to disregard even grave offline consequences as
acceptable collateral damage of their online growth; and
h. Courts have applied Section 230 immunity even in cases where platforms have
affirmatively solicited, edited, promoted, or algorithmically curated harmful content,
refused to remove illegal material after repeated notices, or profited from illegal
activities facilitated through their services; and
i. This immunity regime denies victims justice and has undermined incentives for
today’s most powerful companies to implement reasonable safety features, act on
actual knowledge of illegal material, avoid making material misrepresentations to
consumers, or design products that minimize foreseeable harms to users, which
effectively transfers the costs of platform-facilitated abuse onto victims while
platforms reap historic profits; and
j. The harms facilitated by platforms and shielded by Section 230 fall
disproportionately on vulnerable populations, including children, women, and
minorities who face online abuse, harassment, stalking, nonconsensual intimate
imagery, exploitation, and other violations that silence their voices and chill their
participation in online life; and
k. Section 230’s sweeping immunity has kept the public in the dark about platform
design choices and safety practices, as most cases are dismissed before evidence can
be discovered, with harmful practices often revealed only through congressional
investigations, whistleblower disclosures, or not at all; and
l. Section 230’s broad grant of immunity stands in sharp contrast to regulatory
frameworks in other jurisdictions, including the European Union’s Digital Services
Act, which require platforms to implement notice-and-takedown procedures and other
accountability measures; and
m. The United States Supreme Court has declined multiple opportunities to construe
Section 230 more narrowly in line with its original intent, despite divided courts’
requests for clarification, making legislative action necessary to address the expansive
judicial interpretation of the immunity shield’s application; and
n. Three decades of experience with Section 230 has demonstrated that voluntary
promises from Big Tech companies have not adequately addressed platform-
facilitated harms, and that targeted and surgical reform of Section 230 is necessary to
restore fundamental principles of legal responsibility, decades of state and federal
product liability and negligence jurisprudence, and parity with brick-and-mortar
 HR 117
Page 4
businesses, which must internalize the costs of foreseeable harms caused by their
products and services through liability insurance, safety innovations, a reasonable
degree of transparency, and responsible business practices; and
o. To the extent some courts allowed cases to proceed, Big Tech is now taking new
measures to avoid liability and frustrate plaintiffs, including by adding new terms to
their terms of service agreements and enforcing forum selection clauses, arbitration
clauses, choice-of-law, class action waivers, and jury waivers; and
p. With the advancement of generative artificial intelligence, Big Tech has begun
claiming in court that the output of its own chatbots are entitled to Section 230
immunity despite it clearly not being the type of third-party content Section 230 was
designed to address; and
q. California, as home to many of the world’s most profitable Big Tech companies and
as a state with strong consumer protection and civil rights traditions, has a compelling
interest in ensuring that federal law does not shield powerful corporations from
accountability for facilitating egregious harms inflicted on California residents; and
r. A growing, bipartisan coalition, including multiple presidents, state attorneys general,
members of Congress from both parties, legal scholars, victim advocates, and some
technology industry leaders, has called for Section 230 reform to restore basic and
reasonable accountability for a corporation’s own actions and representations; and
s. In December 2025, United States Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Dick
Durbin (D-Illinois), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode
Island), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Marsha
Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), Ashley Moody (R-
Florida), and Peter Welch (D-Vermont) introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which
would repeal Section 230 two years after the date of enactment; and
t. Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) introduced the Sunset to Reform
Section 230 Act; and
u. The two-year sunset window is not intended to remove all reasonable protections but
rather to provide a firm deadline to ensure that Big Tech participates in Section 230
reform efforts in good faith in order to restore appropriate balance and accountability.
2) Calls upon Congress to reform Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of
1996 to restore meaningful accountability for powerful online companies, beginning with the
first step of passing the bipartisan effort to sunset Section 230.
COMMENTS:
1) Authors’ statement. According to the authors:
While Section 230 served a valuable purpose in the development of the internet, three
decades after its enactment the law has become outdated. Its expansive grant of immunity has
enabled some of history’s most profitable companies to disregard or facilitate foreseeable
harms as an acceptable cost of growth, with courts dismissing cases involving harassment
 HR 117
Page 5
and stalking, sexual exploitation, child sexual abuse material, scams targeting seniors,
terrorist recruitment, and other serious offenses. Unlike brick-and-mortar businesses, which
can face significant liability for certain foreseeable harms occurring on their premises or in
connection with their products, dominant platforms generally face no equivalent legal
pressure to invest in effective safety measures or responsible product design. The harms fall
disproportionately on children, women, LGTBQ+ individuals, and non-white people.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has declined multiple opportunities to narrow Section 230’s
application, making congressional action necessary.
This resolution calls on Congress to reform Section 230, starting with passage of the
bipartisan Sunset Section 230 Act, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham.
That legislation would sunset Section 230 after two years, creating a window for Congress to
enact targeted, surgical reforms that restore basic principles of legal accountability. By
urging this first step, the Legislature signals California’s support for a structured federal
process to reexamine and modernize the immunity framework, preserving what works while
closing the loopholes that have shielded platforms from accountability for decades.
2) Section 230: with great power comes limited responsibility. Section 230 of the federal
Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which creates a liability shield for online
platforms from harms arising from third-party content, has been hailed as the law that created the
modern internet, fostering free expression online and allowing an array of innovative services
and spaces to flourish, from search engines to social media.2 It has also come with a destructive
side, absolving platforms of responsibility for virtually all third-party abuse facilitated by their
services—“a protection not available to print material or television broadcasts.”3 As University
of Virginia School of Law Professor Danielle Keats Citron writes:
A brick-and-mortar business that makes it easy for third parties to stalk and invade the
privacy of victims faces tort liability for enabling the abuse. A hard-copy magazine that
published user-submitted nonconsensual porn encounters a blizzard of privacy lawsuits. But
when those activities happen online, companies are shielded from liability. We have Section
230 to thank for that.4
Such harms, Professor Citron argues, are disproportionately visited upon women, children,
LGTBQ+ individuals, and non-white people, depriving them of the opportunity to participate
fully in online life at the expense of their civil rights and liberties. This section addresses the
purpose and text of Section 230, key judicial precedents that interpreted it broadly, and
stakeholder calls for reform.
Congress’s intent: encourage Good Samaritans to self-regulate. Section 230’s initial purpose
was to encourage online companies to engage in good-faith moderation of offensive content. It
2
See e.g., Kosseff, The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (2019); Jeffrey D. Neuburger, “United States:
Commerce Dept. Petitions FCC to Issue Rules Clarifying CDA Section 230,” (Aug. 7, 2020) Mondaq,
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/971694/commerce-dept-petitions-fcc-to-issue-rules-clarifying-
cda-section-230 [https://perma.cc/JQ85-2FYE]; Danielle Keats Citron, “How to Fix Section 230” (2023) 103 B.U.L.
Rev. 713, 717.
3
Quinta Jurecic, “The politics of Section 230 reform: Learning from FOSTA’s mistakes” (Mar. 1, 2022) Brookings,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-politics-of-section-230-reform-learning-from-fostas-mistakes/;
Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, “The Case for a CDA Section 230 Notice-and-Takedown Duty” (2023) 23
Nev.L.J. 533, 536.
4
The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age (2022), p. 84.
 HR 117
Page 6
was prompted by Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co.,5 a New York State trial court case in
which Stratton Oakmont – of Wolf of Wall Street infamy – sued Prodigy, a social network, for
allegedly defamatory statements posted on Prodigy’s bulletin board by a user. At issue was the
proper analogy to brick-and-mortar counterparts under longstanding defamation law. Publishers,
such as book or newspaper publishers, are strictly liable for publishing defamatory content. By
contrast, distributors, such as book stores, libraries, or newsstands, do not face such liability
unless they know or have reason to know of the defamation.6 The court c