![\"google](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/googledns.png\")
Google rarely addresses pirate site blocking in public, but it is a significant concern now that these measures directly impact the company\u2019s own infrastructure. <\/p>\nGoogle rarely addresses pirate site blocking in public, but it is a significant concern now that these measures directly impact the company\u2019s own infrastructure. <\/p>\n
The American tech company has been ordered to block access to pirate domain names through its DNS resolver in France<\/a>, Belgium<\/a>, Italy and Portugal, for example. <\/p>\n In a recent submission to the European Commission\u2019s call for evidence on the review of the Copyright Directive, Google lists its site blocking critique in detail. The filing is marked \u201cPrivileged and Confidential\u201d but it was posted publicly on the commission\u2019s website, alongside other submissions. <\/p>\n Google\u2019s submission addresses a variety of topics, including the company\u2019s opposition to broad site blocking measures. This includes VPN and third-party DNS blocking, which is seen as disproportionate and ineffective. The same applies to IP-address blocking, which risks targeting infrastructure of legitimate sites and services.<\/p>\n \u201cBlocking DNS resolvers, IPs, VPNs, is ineffective, as it does not remove content at all and is easily circumvented by using alternative DNS resolvers. It is disproportionate, catching lawful services, raising extra-territoriality concerns and blocking entire domains,\u201d Google writes.<\/p>\n \u201cSimilarly, blocking IP addresses neither removes the content nor achieves proportionate outcomes, as many lawful services may be using the same IP address,\u201d the company adds. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n The submission cited several real-world examples to support these claims. It mentions that Italy\u2019s Piracy Shield blocked a Google Drive<\/a> subdomain, as well as IP-addresses hosting over 42 million domains of Cloudflare customers<\/a>. Meanwhile, in France, CISCO stopped offering<\/a> its OpenDNS service after a local court ordered DNS resolver blockades.<\/p>\n Google also highlights a December 2019 incident in Portugal where ISPs blocked Google-hosted Virtual IP addresses, disrupting \u201ccore Google services and cut off legitimate traffic for other innocent Google Cloud customers sharing the same virtual IPs.\u201d<\/p>\n These concerns are not incidental. A large-scale empirical study<\/a> published by the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) recently found that following a LaLiga blocking order in Spain, more than 554,000 domains were blocked at least once during football match broadcasts. This included website from Amnesty International and the ACLU, UNICEF, UNHCR, the Australian Senate, Stanford Law Review, and Amazon S3 endpoints.<\/p>\n In addition to the overblocking concerns, the submission notes that any expansions of the blocking regime in Europe should be proportional and keep the safeguards in mind that are already provided by EU law. Google specifically notes that courts \u201cshould not serve as mere rightholder \u2018mail boxes\u2019, by simply rubber-stamping blocking demands.\u201d<\/p>\n Google believes that blocking injunction should only be used as a last resort if regular takedown options failed. These injunctions should be transparent, limited in time, while both rightsholders and the intermediaries share the implementation costs. <\/p>\n The submission shows that Google is not outright opposed to site blocking, as long as it\u2019s restricted to targeted and proportional measures. The real solution to piracy does not lie in enforcement, Google argues, but in creating superior legal alternatives. <\/p>\n \u201cIn our experience, unmet consumer demand is a key driver of piracy. That is why one of the best ways to combat piracy is to provide better, more convenient, and legitimate alternatives,\u201d Google writes. <\/p>\n Google\u2019s EU filing was submitted a few days before U.S. lawmakers doubled down on their site blocking intentions. On June 30, the House IP subcommittee<\/a> held a hearing on copyright protection and enforcement on the Internet, with planned site blocking legislation as a key topic. <\/p>\n Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa told The Capitol Forum<\/a> that he planned to introduce a site blocking bill that week. While there is no record of an introduced bill, it suggests that momentum is building. <\/p>\n This was also confirmed during the hearing<\/a>, as Issa closed by signaling that the educational phase of the lawmaking process is over.<\/p>\n \u201cLanguage is being distributed on what we\u2019ll believe is final compromises to get to legislation,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s going to be my intention, with the help of my chairman and old friend, Mr. Jordan<\/a>, that we will move it out of this committee.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rep. Issa is retiring at the end of his current term. Whether the bill has been formally introduced since his stated deadline is not clear. TorrentFreak has reached out to Issa\u2019s office for comment, but we didn\u2019t hear back.<\/p>\n Issa\u2019s bill isn\u2019t the only proposal. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who introduced the competing FADPA bill<\/a> last year, told The Capitol Forum she is negotiating a bipartisan, bicameral \u201cfour corners agreement\u201d with Issa and Senators Blackburn, Coons, Schiff, and Tillis. That formally confirms out earlier reporting<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the hearing made clear that the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Cox v. Sony<\/a> only intensified the call for site blocking. The Supreme Court concluded that ISPs cannot be held secondarily liable for user piracy unless they actively induce or tailor their services for infringement, which means that rightsholders will need an alternative enforcement tool.<\/p>\n Google has not commented on the U.S. site blocking plans yet, but it is a member of the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA<\/a>) whose president, Chris Mohr, did testify at the recent subcommittee hearing. <\/p>\n According to Mohr, his members are \u201cgenuinely split\u201d on site blocking. At the same time, he stressed that a U.S. blocking bill should have robust judicial backing, while the technical measures should be precise enough to prevent overblocking and protect shared infrastructure.<\/p>\n The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition<\/a>), which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, has previously critiqued broad blocking plans. Last year the organization launched its DNS at Risk<\/a> campaign, warning the public about DNS blocking threats.<\/p>\n Google\u2019s EU submission is also quite outspoken. While it does not refer to the American plans, Google is clearly opposed to requiring blocking measures from third-party DNS resolvers, while noting that blocking is ineffective, disproportionate, and harmful to lawful sites and services.<\/p>\n Whether the company will make the same arguments publicly as the American bill moves forward remains to be seen.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n Google\u2019s submission to the European Commission\u2019s consultation is available here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nBlocking Harms Outweigh Benefits, Google Argues<\/h2>\n
![\"google](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/google-eu-sub.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nClear Guardrails<\/h2>\n
U.S. Site Blocking Gains Momentum<\/h2>\n
![\"issa\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/chaiissa.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nGoogle is Silent on U.S. Plans<\/h2>\n