The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code to establish a new process for obtaining court orders to block access to infringing foreign websites or online services. A "covered person," defined as a copyright owner or exclusive licensee, may petition a U.S. District Court for a preliminary order if they can demonstrate that a foreign website is likely infringing their exclusive rights and causing irreparable harm. This applies to both general transmissions of copyrighted work and the imminent or ongoing unauthorized transmission of live events.

For a preliminary order to be issued, the petitioner must provide the website's online identifier, attempt to serve notice on the operator, and notify relevant service providers of the infringing activity. The court must find that the foreign website or online service is primarily designed for, has no significant purpose other than, or is intentionally marketed to promote copyright infringement. Additionally, the petitioner must certify that the operator is physically located outside the United States or their location cannot be determined to be within the U.S., and attest to the accuracy of their assertions under penalty of perjury.

Following a preliminary order, the petitioner can move for a blocking order, directing service providers to take reasonable and technically feasible measures to prevent user access to the identified foreign website. These "service providers" include broadband providers with 100,000+ subscribers and public domain name resolution services with over $100 million in annual revenue. Before issuing such an order, the court must determine that its implementation will not interfere with access to non-infringing material, significantly burden the service provider, or disserve the public interest.

Blocking orders generally last for 12 months, with extensions possible, but orders related to live events expire 48 hours after the event concludes. The bill allows for amendments to include additional service providers or new domain names/IP addresses if the infringing site reconstitutes or uses circumvention techniques. Importantly, orders cannot prescribe specific technical measures or require service providers to prevent users from utilizing virtual private networks (VPNs).

Service providers are granted immunity from liability for actions taken in good faith to comply with a blocking order, even if the identified website is later found to be inaccurately identified. They may also seek reimbursement for reasonable marginal costs incurred in implementing the order. The bill clarifies that compliance with these orders does not affect a service provider's existing liability protections under Section 512(a) of the Copyright Act.

To ensure transparency, courts are required to make issued orders publicly available on a website, including details like the petitioner's name, identified foreign websites, duration, and court findings. However, information can be redacted if its disclosure would render the order ineffective, pose a significant risk to national security, personal safety, or an ongoing law enforcement investigation.