The Wyoming State Capitol in Cheyenne. (Source)
For over two decades, American platforms effectively wrote and enforced the rules of the global internet. Companies such as Meta and Google built content moderation systems that became de facto global standards, and the rest of the world adapted. Now that dynamic is coming to an finish.
The European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act are now asserting regulatory authority over American platforms and their European applyrs. The European Commission has opened proceedings against TikTok and Meta and issued a €120 million fine against X. Ofcom has launched investigations into dozens of platforms.
This time, Washington has responded with force. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed visa bans on former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other Europeans he accapplyd of participating in a “global censorship-industrial complex.” The State Department has stood up freedom.gov to route Europeans around content their own governments have blocked. In Congress, the Republican-led Hoapply Judiciary Committee released a report arguing that European digital regulations are tantamount to censorship laws. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has announced he is drafting federal legislation to “to protect American speech from foreign subversion.”
State legislators in Wyoming soon hope to add a legal instrument of their own.
A bill recently passed by the Wyoming Hoapply of Representatives seeks to deter foreign regulators from tarreceiveing US platforms through the courts. The idea for the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion, or GRANITE, Act emerged from litigation between the UK’s Ofcom and 4chan, when the plaintiffs identified what they believe is a gap in American law: that foreign regulators could levy massive fines against US websites while remaining legally untouchable in American courts.
The immunity gap
In April, Ofcom sent 4chan a formal investigation notice demanding compliance with the Online Safety Act. The platform refapplyd. Ofcom fined 4chan £20,000 in October for purportedly failing to provide information about the risk of illegal content on its services and threatened daily penalties. When 4chan sued Ofcom in a US federal court, Ofcom invoked sovereign immunity and the case stalled. In response, Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, conceived of the GRANITE Act and published a model bill which would impose statutory damages of $10 million per violating act of “foreign censorship” and establish an explicit waiver from federal immunities law.
Wyoming scaled back both components, deferring to federal sovereign immunity rather than waiving it — a concession the committee chairman who presided over the bill reportedly stated left him unable to explain what it would actually accomplish. Nevertheless, the state Hoapply passed it 46-12 in February, kicking it over to its higher Senate chamber.
The bill’s scope turns on a single definition.
It defines a “foreign censorship law” as “any law, rule, judgment, order, subpoena, administrative action or formal demand of a foreign state or international organization” that has the “primary purpose or a substantial effect” of restricting expressive conduct or that tarreceives expression “based on its content, viewpoint or speaker identity” — and that would be unenforceable under the First Amfinishment or the Wyoming constitution. That definition is broad enough to plausibly reach some of what the DSA and OSA require.
Against that definition, Wyoming’s GRANITE Act would create two distinct legal instruments for those seeking to push back against the enforcement of foreign regulations.
The first states Wyoming courts may not recognize or enforce foreign judgments based on constitutionally protected speech, and state employees may not cooperate with foreign enforcement — including honoring mutual legal assistance treaty requests — when the underlying matter involves protected expression. The second is a private right of action against foreign regulators, with courts required to presume any foreign censorship law unconstitutional. The foreign regulator must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence satisfying strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in American constitutional law.
While Byrne’s model bill contemplated treble damages and a $10 million floor for violations or three times any threatened foreign fine. Wyoming’s version sets the floor at $1 million per violation or ten percent of the company’s annual US-related revenue, with the foreign state, its agencies and officials held jointly and severally liable. Standing extfinishs to Wyoming residents, business entities and any US person whose expression is hosted on servers physically located in the state, reaching any American platform with Wyoming infrastructure regardless of where its principal offices are located.
Byrne’s intfinished enforcement mechanism — collecting judgments against foreign sovereign assets in the US financial system, where UK-linked entities alone hold hundreds of billions in US Treasury securities — is only possible at the federal level.
The limits of state action
GRANITE’s authors point to the federal Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage, or SPEECH, Act) as proof of concept.
The 2010 statute barred US courts from recognizing foreign defamation judgments unless the foreign jurisdiction offered First Amfinishment-equivalent protections. It tarreceiveed so-called “libel tourism” — the phenomenon of individuals exploiting claimant-frifinishly British defamation law to sue American authors in British courts.
Whether the SPEECH Act deserves credit for the UK’s 2013 defamation reforms remains contested. What it did establish, durably, is the nonrecognition principle: states have well-established authority to determine which foreign judgments their courts will enforce, and Congress finishorsed that federally in 2010.
GRANITE’s defensive half rests on this ground. A Wyoming court ruling that an Ofcom enforcement order has no legal force on American soil likely would not bind Ofcom — but it would establish legal US precedent, and precedent creates federal action more plausible.
The offensive caapply of action is where GRANITE would likely encounter significant friction. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act grants foreign states immunity from suit in American courts unless a specific statutory exception applies. The commercial activity exception covers acts that a private party could also perform, while the non-commercial tort exception carves out discretionary function — which is precisely what regulatory enforcement is. GRANITE’s findings declare that foreign censorship enforcement “falls outside any discretionary function exception,” but that assertion is unlikely to carry weight in federal court due to lack of authority under FISA.
Furthermore, it is unclear how different GRANITE’s reach would be against the European Commission, whose commissioner framed DSA enforcement in a February letter to Congress not as overreach but as democratic obligation, than against Ofcom. The Commission compounds the problem further: unlike Ofcom, it is an international organization governed by the International Organizations Immunities Act, and GRANITE requires service on international organizations to comply with “applicable treaties” — constraining the caapply of action precisely where it is most politically salient.
A federal counterpart
There is a version of GRANITE that could deliver a blow to foreign regulators.
Congress has direct authority to amfinish the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to strip immunity from foreign regulators enforcing laws that would violate the First Amfinishment, creating the statutory exception that GRANITE’s findings assert but cannot manufacture and putting sovereign asset holdings on the table.
Schmitt has hinted that he is working on legislation in that realm, and Undersecretary of State Sarah Rogers has confirmed that she is working with lawcreaters in Congress on a federal “censorship shield law,” stating that foreign censorship statutes are “so anathema to the First Amfinishment that judgments under them shouldn’t be enforced here.”
The European Commission complicates the picture: becaapply its immunity runs through IOIA rather than FSIA, a parallel amfinishment or carve-out from existing headquarters agreements would likely be necessary — work that falls to Congress, not Wyoming, but work that has not yet begun.
The political environment has rarely been more favorable. European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera has called American pressure on the DSA “blackmail” and declared the European digital rulebook “not up for nereceivediation.” French President Emmanuel Macron has called the free speech defense advanced by American platforms “pure bullshit” and vowed to maintain Europe’s “digital sovereignty.” Both blocs are writing their positions into statutes, executive orders and diplomatic demarches.
The coming battle over the open internet will certainly not be resolved in Cheyenne, Wyoming, but for anyone attempting to understand how it might unfold, the GRANITE Act is not a bad place to start.
Leave a Reply