On Thursday, August 27, 2026, Rep. Michael Rulli (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 10174, the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, a bill that would prohibit US courts from recognizing or enforcing "a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law." XBIZ reported the introduction on August 28, and trade group NetChoice published an endorsement the same day.

Why It Matters

For US-based adult platforms, creator sites and sextech companies, the compliance nightmare of the last two years has been jurisdictional: comply with Texas, comply with the UK, comply with France's Arcom sweep, comply with the DSA — each with different age-assurance standards and each with real money attached. GRANITE would not stop a foreign regulator from blocking a US site inside its own borders, but it would make the fines much harder to actually collect on US soil, changing the calculus on whether to geo-block versus comply. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has a long road. But it is not an isolated effort: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) signaled similar legislation last year, and Wyoming passed a state version through its House this year before it stalled in the Senate. Trump administration officials have repeatedly characterized European content laws as attacks on American speech, going as far as visa restrictions on EU figures the administration accuses of pressuring US platforms — which suggests executive-branch appetite if the bill advances. The irony worth flagging: the same Congress weighing bills like the SCREEN Act to mandate age verification domestically may be simultaneously legislating that foreign age verification mandates are censorship. Which one your company is subject to may end up depending entirely on where the server sits.

The bill defines a "foreign censorship law" as any foreign law that has the primary purpose or substantial effect of restricting or penalizing expression; targets expression based on content, viewpoint or speaker identity; or compels disclosure that would reasonably chill expression — and that would conflict with First Amendment protections if recognized in the US. Per NetChoice, GRANITE would also give Americans facing such judgments an affirmative right to seek a federal declaration that the judgment is unenforceable, and would strip sovereign immunity as a shield for foreign states trying to collect.

The live question for this industry is whether age verification counts. The AV provisions of the EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act are exactly the kind of foreign speech regulation the bill's authors have in mind — and the bill was conceived by attorney Preston Byrne, who has represented the forum 4chan against Ofcom's attempts to force it to age-gate. But Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton cuts the other way. The Supreme Court there held that requiring proof of age before accessing material obscene as to minors imposes only an incidental burden on adults, which suggests a well-tailored foreign AV law might fall outside GRANITE's definition entirely.

Two industry attorneys told XBIZ the answer is law-by-law. Lawrence Walters noted that "each foreign law would need to be independently evaluated against the holding of Paxton," and that "some foreign laws go far beyond sexual expression when defining 'harmful content,'" potentially shielding US operators from those judgments. Corey D. Silverstein agreed GRANITE could be a meaningful defense "particularly when their application depends on the content being accessed or when they require users to disclose identifying information as a condition of accessing protected speech" — while flagging that the harder hurdle is proving recognition would actually conflict with the First Amendment.

NetChoice's supporting brief points to the European Commission's December 2025 fine against X — roughly $140 million, the first formal non-compliance decision under the DSA — as proof that nine-figure penalties against US-headquartered platforms under speech-adjacent laws are no longer hypothetical.

Sources

Update — 2026-08-29

Initial entry — story first created.