The frontline of online piracy liability keeps moving and core internet infrastructure providers are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs.
Since last year, the Paris Judicial Court has ordered Cloudflare, Google and other intermediaries to actively block access to pirate sites through their DNS resolvers, confirming that third-party intermediaries can be required to take responsibility.
These blockades are requested by sports rights holders, covering Formula 1, football Ligue 1, MotoGP, and other major sporting brands. They claimed that public DNS resolvers could help users to bypass existing ISP blockades, and the court agreed.
This year, rightsholders including beIN and Canal+ extended their list of problematic intermediaries by targeting VPN providers with similar blocking demands. Again, the Paris Court acknowledged the threat of circumvention, and CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark were ordered to start blocking access to specific websites in France.
New VPN blocking orders
These blocking efforts didn’t stop after the first blocking order was granted in May. A similar order followed in June, and on July 18, two new orders targeting VPNs were handed down by the Paris Court.
beIN vs. Nordvpn, Proton, Cyberghost (July 18)
The first blocking request lists seven domains accused of sharing pirated WTA Tennis Tournament streams. They are freestreams-live.mp, topliga.net, tennis-open.ru, line.super-signal.com, line.protv.cc, 115680073183.d4ktv.info and line.trx-ott.com.
Like previous blocking cases, the request is grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, which enables rightsholders to seek court orders against any entity that can help to stop ‘serious and repeated’ sports piracy.
After reviewing the evidence and hearing argument from both sides, the Paris Court granted the blocking request, ordering the VPN providers to block all seven domains.
Canal+ Group vs. NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, Surfshark and ExpressVPN (July 18)
The Canal+ request aims to block pirated Formula One streams accessible via 16 domains; f1livestream.best, f1box.me, calmatv.ru, rojadirectatvdh.online, totalsportek.stream, rojadirecta.website, antenavip.online, antenacentral.store, livetv822.me, lshunter-iframe.com, totalsportek.dad, totalsportek.games, kakarotfoot.ru, totalsportek.pro, f1.totalsportek.pro, cdn.livetv822.me.
In common with the beIN case, Canal+ targets NordVPN, Proton, and CyberGhost, with Surfshark and ExpressVPN as additional VPN providers.
Justifications for blocking are also similar to those in the beIN case, but the outcome was different. While the Paris Court granted the blocking request, it did so only for five domains, with the remaining eleven running into evidence issues.
These five domain names had to be blocked within three days of the July 18 order, with the same applying to the beIN case. In both cases, all parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs.
Not All Blocking Requests Were Granted
The Canal+ case stands out because the Paris Court refused to issue a blocking order for 11 domains. For these sites, there was no definite proof that the illegal Formula 1 streams were using the Canal+ broadcast feed.
Canal+ is not an exclusive rightsholder of Formula 1, and the absence of a Canal+ logo makes it impossible to verify that its ‘related’ rights were infringed by these sites.
Previously, the Paris Court partly declined to issue a blocking order in favor of beIN for similar reasons. This indicates that, while the legal door is now open to compel VPNs to comply with blocking orders, victory isn’t automatic. The burden of proof is high and requires meticulous, site-by-site evidence from the rights holder.
Court Rejects Defenses and Request to Stay
The VPNs presented various defenses to the court. They argued that blocking measures are ineffective, costly, and technically difficult to limit to just France. The Paris Court was not convinced by any of these arguments.
Notably, CyberGhost and ExpressVPN asked the court to stay the proceedings to request clarification from the European Court of Justice. They cited a Dutch case pending at the CJEU, but also asked to refer specific questions regarding the blocking language in the French Sports Code.
In simplified terms, the VPNs want to ask the EU’s top court if France’s law can use “general and abstract” language to require “any person likely to contribute” to piracy to implement blocking measures.
They argue that Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code may violate the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, which aims to create a single market, preventing countries like France from creating their own special rules that restrict online services from other EU nations.
The Paris Court rejected the request to stay the case and declined to refer any questions to the CJEU.
The Court stressed that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t have a ‘horizontal direct effect,’ meaning one private company (the VPNs) cannot use it to invalidate a national law in a lawsuit against another private company (Canal+). It further stressed that the blocking order is a specific, proportionate, and targeted measure to stop a proven infringement.
Finally, in a small win for the VPNs, the Court rejected a separate request from Canal+ that would have required them to publish the ruling on their websites, deeming that specific measure disproportionate.
Whether the VPN companies plan to appeal is not clear. ProtonVPN previously said that it is prepared to take this case all the way to Europe’s highest court, and it will likely find other VPNs on its side. Alternatively, leaving France is also a viable option for some.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Powered by WPeMatico
