Fighting online piracy in 2025: expanding copyright enforcement to new intermediaries

Piracy represents the primary threat to the exploitation of audiovisual content. This threat is particularly evident in the context of live events, such as sporting competitions. The value of these assets lies fundamentally in their live consumption, which means that efforts to counter this threat must, in such cases, be especially swift.

It is therefore unsurprising that the key stakeholders within this industry have taken a leading role in the most significant developments observed in the fight against online piracy in 2025. Different undertakings in various jurisdictions are adopting strategies aimed at achieving faster and more effective enforcement mechanisms, with the objective of reducing the levels of piracy they face. The following sections analyse these developments, with particular attention to efforts to extend blocking injunctions to intermediaries beyond traditional Internet Service Providers, as well as the potential consequences of such strategies.

France

French courts have been among the most active in this field throughout 2025. In this context, intellectual property rights holders have sought to extend the scope of dynamic blocking orders in relation to sporting events beyond internet access providers, which had until then been the primary entities responsible for implementing such measures (Frosio and Bulayenko 2021).

To this end, rights holders have secured a series of favourable judicial decisions extending blocking obligations to providers of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs ).

In these rulings, rendered by the Judicial Court of Paris, the Court first confirms the status of these operators as intermediaries. It holds that the mere fact that the services provided by these platforms are used as a conduit for the unlawful consumption of protected works is sufficient to qualify them as such.

Having established their intermediary status, the Judicial Court of Paris then examines the legality of extending blocking orders to these actors. Relying on the CJEU Telekabel judgment, the Court reasons that allowing operators discretion as to the specific technical means by which blocking measures are implemented ensures a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to conduct a business.

Accordingly, the Court upholds the claims, and orders these platforms to adopt the necessary measures, most notably the blocking of domain names identified by rights holders, in order to render the targeted websites inaccessible for the duration of the sporting competition.

Spain

Spain has also been a jurisdiction marked by significant developments. In this respect, on 18 December 2024, Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona delivered a judgment  upholding the claims brought by LaLiga and its audiovisual partners, ordering the internet service providers to implement dynamic blocking orders against the pirate websites identified by the claimants.

At first glance, the judgment did not appear to represent a major shift, as an earlier decision issued in 2021 had reached similar conclusions. However, the 2024 ruling is noteworthy for the way in which it narrows the blocking measures to be implemented, placing particular emphasis on IP address blocking. This technical measure is expressly reflected in the operative part of the judgment, whereas previous decisions had also contemplated other mechanisms, such as domain name blocking.

The enforcement of this judgment has resulted in IP address blocking becoming the primary tool used by LaLiga in its anti-piracy efforts. It should be kept in mind that due to the architecture of the internet, where IP addresses are commonly shared, this mechanism carries a significant risk of overblocking (Geiger and Izyumenko 2020).

This risk has materialised in practice, with a large number of websites being adversely affected. IP address blocks ordered at LaLiga’s request have reportedly rendered inoperable websites entirely unrelated to piracy, including the payment platform Redsys, the supermarket chain Froiz, and the Royal Spanish Language Academy. User complaints regarding these instances of overblocking have been widespread and have prompted several parliamentary groups to submit questions to the Spanish Government, raising concerns about the legality of such measures.

At the core of the problem lies the role played by CDNs. These providers are used both by pirate websites and by legitimate operators to optimise web traffic, making it common for both types of sites to share the same IP address. As a result, the IP address identified by rights holders is often not the one actually distributing the infringing content, but rather the address associated with the CDN infrastructure. Blocking such an IP address therefore leads to the indiscriminate blocking of all websites that share it (EUIPO 2023) .

These developments have triggered a direct confrontation between LaLiga and the leading CDN provider, Cloudflare. LaLiga’s president, Javier Tebas, has made repeated public statements accusing Cloudflare  of acting as an accomplice to online piracy and calling on the company to take stronger action to address the problem. Cloudflare, for its part, has responded by arguing that the blocking measures sought by LaLiga amount to censorship of the internet, preventing users from freely accessing lawful content while matches are being played.

Cloudflare’s opposition to the current blocking regime has also been brought before the courts. After its challenge to the Barcelona Commercial Court’s decision was dismissed, Cloudflare filed an appeal before the Spanish Constitutional Court. The forthcoming decision is widely regarded as pivotal in clarifying the legality of the current blocking framework.

Italy

Finally, Italy represents one of the most innovative jurisdictions in terms of the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Through the adoption of  Law No. 93/2023   the Italian legislature introduced the Piracy Shield platform. This instrument, managed by the national regulator AGCOM is designed to provide rights holders with an effective mechanism for blocking pirate websites.

Rights holders submit to the platform the domain name or IP address through which protected works are being unlawfully disseminated, together with evidence of the alleged infringement. The platform then automatically transmits the blocking order to the relevant intermediaries, including internet service providers, VPN providers, and DNS operators, who are required to implement the measures within a timeframe of less than 30 minutes (Pasa 2025).

Empirical research into the operation of the platform has revealed a number of negative effects, most notably instances of overblocking resulting from the use of IP address blocking. Despite these concerns, the Italian legislature has decided to expand the scope of the platform  to cover other categories of protected works, such as television series and films.

As in Spain, these developments have also led to a confrontation with the intermediary Cloudflare. In this case, AGCOM has imposed a fine of €14,247 million  on the US-based technology company for its alleged failure to cooperate in the implementation of the measures required to render the identified pirate websites inaccessible within the 30-minute deadline. According to AGCOM, this conduct constitutes a breach of Article 2(5) of Law No. 93/2023.

Reflections

The developments outlined above highlight the growing tension and complexity characterising the fight against online piracy. Rights holders are increasingly seeking to extend blocking orders beyond traditional internet access providers, arguing that both VPNs and CDNs play a central role in the contemporary architecture of online piracy.

These platforms, for their part, contend that they lack control over the manner in which users employ their services. They further argue that compelling them to adopt blocking measures of this kind interferes with the very core of their freedom to conduct a business, as well as a breach of article 8 of the Digital Services Act , which forbids the imposition of general monitoring obligations on intermediaries.

Against this backdrop, the next stages in the evolution of the proceedings described above will be of critical importance. What is at stake is not only the future of intellectual property enforcement online, but also the functioning of the internet itself as a pivotal component of the modern economy. In this regard, both CDNs and VPNs providers have indicated their willingness to withdraw from markets in which they are required to implement blocking measures. Courts are therefore required to ensure a fair balance between the fundamental rights at stake, so that the protection of intellectual property rights does not unduly deprive users of access to essential services and tools such as VPNs and CDNs, nor undermine the fundamental rights associated with their use.

Image by Dee from Pixabay.