A growing movement inside the United States is pushing for a new law that would give American citizens the power to sue European and British authorities if they attempt to impose censorship-related penalties on U.S. individuals or companies. The proposal, known as the GRANITE Act, has emerged in response to increasingly strict online-content regulations in Europe and the UK and recent high-profile fines against American technology platforms.
The idea has gathered momentum following the EU’s $140 million fine on Elon Musk’s X platform under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The penalty, cited by critics as an example of foreign overreach into U.S. free-speech space, sparked renewed calls in Washington and several U.S. states for legislation that would allow Americans to “sue back” when foreign governments attempt to regulate their speech.
A New Legal Tool Against Foreign Censorship
The GRANITE Act—short for Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion—was first drafted by U.S. legal scholars as a response to the growing influence of overseas digital laws. Supporters argue that the EU and UK have begun exporting their stricter speech rules to American citizens and companies through compliance demands, fine notices, and takedown orders—often over content that remains legal under U.S. standards.
Under the proposal, an American who receives a censorship-related fine, threat, or enforcement notice from a foreign regulator could file a lawsuit in a U.S. court. The proposed legislation would allow plaintiffs to seek multi-million-dollar damages, injunctions to block the foreign action, and, in extreme cases, the ability to collect settlements from European government funds held in U.S. banks.
The idea is modeled after earlier U.S. protections—such as the SPEECH Act of 2010—which prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgments that violate First Amendment principles. But the GRANITE Act goes further, extending that shield to the modern digital environment, where overseas regulators increasingly pressure social-media platforms to remove content worldwide, not just within their borders.
Why the Push Is Happening Now
Tensions over online regulation have been rising for several years. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act give regulators broad powers to police disinformation, hate speech, and harmful content, with penalties that can reach into the billions. Because nearly all major platforms—from X to Meta to Google—are American, critics say these laws effectively allow foreign governments to control the speech of U.S. citizens.
The X penalty earlier this year intensified the debate. Many U.S. lawmakers, civil-liberties advocates, and technology experts argued that the EU’s enforcement actions were attempting to force American platforms to follow European political and cultural norms globally. The fine immediately prompted public calls for Congress to adopt the GRANITE Act, with supporters saying Americans should not “stand defenseless” when foreign regulators impose their speech standards on U.S. soil.
Draft versions of the law are now circulating in multiple state legislatures, and sponsors say a federal version is expected to be introduced in Congress. Advocates describe it as a necessary counterbalance to what they see as one-sided pressure from abroad.
What the Act Would Do
In its current draft form, the GRANITE Act would:
-
Create a private right of action allowing any U.S. citizen or company to sue foreign governments, officials, or regulators who attempt to enforce censorship-related laws against them.
-
Provide statutory damages starting at $10 million, or triple the amount of the foreign fine—whichever is higher.
-
Allow U.S. courts to issue injunctions preventing foreign censorship orders from taking effect in the United States.
-
Enable plaintiffs, in certain cases, to recover awards from European or British state assets, including sovereign funds deposited in American financial institutions.
-
Block recognition of foreign judgments that restrict speech protected under U.S. constitutional guarantees.
Supporters say this would fundamentally shift the dynamics of international online regulation by introducing serious consequences for governments that attempt to impose their rules beyond their borders.
Supporters vs. Critics
Backers of the GRANITE Act argue that the EU and UK have taken increasingly aggressive steps to regulate online speech—steps that contradict First Amendment traditions. They portray the act as a defensive measure, designed to protect Americans from being forced to obey censorship rules they never voted for.
Critics, however, warn that such legislation could trigger international retaliation, potentially exposing American companies to even harsher treatment abroad. Some legal scholars also question whether stripping foreign governments of sovereign immunity—particularly when seizing funds—would survive court challenges.
Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic worry that the law could spark serious friction between the U.S. and its European allies at a time when cooperation on cybersecurity, AI governance, and digital markets is increasingly important.
What Comes Next
Although no federal version of the GRANITE Act has yet been passed, the idea is gaining visibility in policy circles. Several states are preparing to introduce their own versions during the next legislative cycle, and congressional committees have begun receiving briefings on the proposal.
If enacted, even at the state level, the GRANITE Act would mark one of the most dramatic shifts in the global governance of online speech—effectively signaling that the United States will not allow foreign governments to impose their censorship regimes on American citizens or businesses.
For now, the political momentum continues to build, driven by a simple question at the heart of the debate:
Who gets to decide what Americans can say online—the United States, or foreign regulators thousands of miles away?
——— End of Article ———
