House Commerce Hears Section 230 Proposal as Senate Judiciary Eyes Parallel Effort

Policy discussions are hopefully “boiling to the point” where Congress can repeal Communications Decency Act Section 230, House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., told us Wednesday. He and Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said the parallel efforts of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and ranking member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are encouraging.

Rodgers and Pallone discussed their bipartisan draft proposal that would sunset Section 230 next year during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing Wednesday. Durbin and Graham were scheduled to hold a 5 p.m. news conference with victims and survivors of social media-related sexual exploitation.

Section 230 "needs to be repealed or dramatically changed," Durbin told us Wednesday. Graham said he believes “more than ever” that Section 230 should be repealed. Durbin told us previously he’s on the “same page” as Graham concerning Section 230 (see 2405150052).

Graham’s office said the two lawmakers plan speaking on the Senate floor to demand unanimous passage of the Earn It Act and the Stop CSAM Act. They failed to obtain unanimous consent for the bills in March (see 2403070039).

“There’s a lot of disgust with how Section 230 has shielded” the tech industry from liability, in many cases involving harm to children, Pallone told us Wednesday. “Things are boiling to the point where we hopefully can get some support to just repeal it.”

Rodgers said the committee will gather more feedback from members before marking up the bill. Informed about discussions between Durbin and Graham, she said, “I need to talk to them.”

Leaders of the House Communications Subcommittee said they want a nuanced discussion about possibly modernizing Section 230. “There is no silver bullet to fix this issue,” Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, said during Wednesday’s hearing. Hopefully the Rodgers-Pallone bill will “bring people together” for a “thoughtful and deliberative” discussion about the 1996 statute, he said.

Ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said Section 230 established “vital protections” that allowed a nascent industry to flourish, but the status quo is no longer “viable.” There’s widespread agreement the statute needs modernizing but no consensus on getting there, she said. Matsui said she wants a “thoughtful” process allowing for “nuanced conversation.”

Engine Executive Director Kate Tummarello testified against Section 230 repeal. Such a drastic change would have an adverse impact on the competitiveness of startups, which must invest in content moderation to maintain trust with users, she said.

Some of the “most malicious” websites are small, testified Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who has represented clients in Section 230-related lawsuits against tech platforms. Goldberg cited claims against Omegle, a website that one person runs. The site connected adults with minors streaming explicit content, she said. There’s no reason that small companies should enjoy a “carve-out,” she said: Small businesses can guard themselves against litigation by being responsible.

Organization for Social Media Safety CEO Marc Berkman testified in favor of repealing Section 230. Given the “extreme amount of harms” and the “public health catastrophe” affecting children, a comprehensive “reworking of the entire system” is the best route, he said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., previously negotiated legislation with Graham for repealing Section 230 (see 2306010074). “I’ve already said I’m there,” Whitehouse told us. Legislative discussions between party leaders on the Judiciary Committee are “a different thing,” he said. “I hope it’s successful.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he’s ready to support a repeal. But any legislation contemplating nuanced changes to the statute would warrant further examination, he said.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said an outright repeal “probably makes less sense than trying to go through and figure out where” there’s agreement on incremental changes. He agreed Section 230 is “absolutely outdated.” It’s a “MySpace policy in a ChatGPT world,” he said.

Tech industry groups issued statements against a repeal. Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Matt Schruers said: “When policymakers cannot agree on whether companies are too aggressive or not aggressive enough when enforcing terms of service online, the solution is not to sunset the law that enables trust and safety professionals to protect users.” He urged the House Commerce Committee to develop a “better understanding of how Section 230 allows digital services to address dangerous content and content online.”

NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo warned against repeal. There “will be less competition in the tech sector without Section 230 [and] our ability to speak freely online will be substantially curbed. Congress should not be playing politics with a key pillar of the Internet,” he said.

TechFreedom joined a group of free speech and tech law scholars opposing the House Commerce Committee's legislation. They said that if Section 230 is repealed, platforms would face an impossible decision: “cease moderating any content -- including the types of content that Congress has expressed concern over, and which users and advertisers would not stand for -- or face liability for every piece of user generated content they host.”

The Open Technology Institute opposes a sunset for Section 230. OTI echoed concerns from Engine about the impact on smaller startups that rely on the liability shield.