The GRANITE Act Can Reshape the Fight Against Foreign Censorship
The First Amendment prevents the U.S. government from infringing on the free speech of Americans, but it does not prevent foreign governments from doing so. As these governments expand regulation of online content, they are increasingly censoring U.S.-based digital platforms. Other countries levy massive penalties on U.S. firms for non-compliance with their censorship laws, and sovereign immunity prevents those governments from being challenged in U.S. courts. American companies are left with no domestic recourse—forced to comply, pay, or limit market operations.
In response to this problem, the Wyoming House of Representatives passed the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, legislation designed to protect U.S. firms and individuals from foreign censorship. The GRANITE Act creates two tools.
The first, the "shield," bars Wyoming courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments that attempt to regulate constitutionally protected speech on U.S. platforms. This provision draws on the federal Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act of 2010, which prevents U.S. courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that do not meet First Amendment standards, but extends it from defamation to the full spectrum of foreign censorship. Of course, the shield has significant limits. A Wyoming court ruling will only apply within the state. It will not stop a foreign regulator from fining or threatening U.S. platforms operating abroad.
The second tool, the "sword," creates a right of action allowing individuals and businesses to sue and collect damages from the foreign officials, regulators, and governments that threaten or enforce censorship. Damages start at $1 million per violation, or 10 percent of the defendant's U.S.-related revenue, whichever is greater. However, this provision faces a big challenge. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants foreign governments immunity from suits in U.S. courts, and the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) extends equivalent protections to bodies like the European Commission. Under the Supremacy Clause, Wyoming cannot override either statute.
Congress could address this problem. By amending FSIA to carve out a specific exception stripping immunity from foreign regulators, Congress could open them to lawsuits in U.S. courts. Once the FSIA amendment is in place, the case for reforming the IOIA to address the European Commission's immunity will inevitably follow.
While FSIA and IOIA provide immunity to foreign governments and international organizations from lawsuits, those protections do not extend to individuals. Instead, these individuals generally enjoy immunity for official acts they perform on behalf of the government. But this immunity is not absolute, and the Trump administration has shown a willingness to impose sanctions directly on foreign government officials. This makes the personal liability element one of the sword provision's strongest components, as institutional fines cannot replicate fear of personal consequences.
Europe's regulatory strategy is calibrated to impose costs that erode the competitive edge U.S. firms have spent decades building—draining the resources that fund American innovation. Moreover, foreign regulators are increasingly targeting U.S. platforms and imposing heavy fines under their content and speech regulations. Laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) force U.S. platforms to quickly remove certain types of lawful content, limit the use of end-to-end encryption, and self-censor content under threat of massive financial penalties. The problem is not that they impose speech regulations within their own borders—that is certainly within their rights—but that their content mandates often spill over abroad.
Furthermore, the pattern is spreading. European laws often serve as templates for governments around the world. If Europe continues to levy fines through the extraterritorial enforcement of content regulations without consequence, other countries will adopt similar laws and fining structures. Foreign regulators are increasingly operating with impunity—free to fine, threaten, and coerce American companies with no risk of consequence. The United States should draw a line in the sand before foreign fines targeting U.S. firms for constitutionally protected speech become the global norm.
To that effect, Wyoming’s GRANITE Act is worth examining more closely. New Hampshire is also developing its own versions of the legislation, inspired by Wyoming's model. While states may play a role in incubating this idea, any consequential legislation would need to come from Congress. If Congress takes up the challenge, it will need to examine more closely the personal liability provisions. Just as American policymakers should not be threatened for fulfilling their routine official government duties, neither should foreign ones. Yet there also might be times when an official’s actions become so egregious in their attempts to harm U.S. interests that personal liability is warranted.
The GRANITE Act shows that the United States does not have to accept foreign censorship as a cost of doing business. Instead, policymakers can send a message that foreign laws targeting free speech on American platforms will face repercussions. When democratic governments impose content restrictions on American platforms, they legitimize China's digital strategy, one built on controlled speech and one that systematically erodes the open Internet that gives the United States its strategic edge. In an era of technological competition with China, a free and open Internet is a necessity, and Congress should defend it.
