A French court has ordered VPN providers NordVPN, Surfshark, Proton VPN, ExpressVPN, and CyberGhost to block access to 13 websites streaming football matches illegally. The ruling, issued on , builds on previous decisions made since compelling VPNs to restrict access to pirated sports content within France.
The Ligue de Football Professionnel (LFP) brought the case, arguing that the websites were infringing on their broadcasting rights. The court mandated that the VPN providers employ “any effective means” to prevent access to the specified domains for users within France, with a deadline of three days from the decision date. This order remains in effect for the duration of the football season, which concludes on .
This latest ruling follows similar orders issued in and at the request of French broadcasters beIN Sports and Canal+. Canal+ has been particularly aggressive in pursuing legal action against both streaming sites and the VPN services that enable access to them.
In a separate, but related case, ProtonVPN recently fought and lost two legal battles against Canal+ in . The Paris Judicial Court ordered ProtonVPN to block 31 sites – 16 streaming Premier League matches and another 15 broadcasting Top 14 Rugby. ProtonVPN mounted a defense on five key points, but the court rejected all arguments.
ProtonVPN’s defense centered on challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction, questioning Canal+’s formal rights to the content, arguing incompatibility with European net neutrality regulations, citing violations of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules regarding cross-border service trade, and asserting the technical impossibility and disproportionate cost of implementing the blocks. The court dismissed each point.
The most significant technical argument revolved around the inherent limitations of VPN technology. Unlike an Internet Service Provider (ISP), ProtonVPN lacks the capability to geographically restrict a block to France alone. Any attempt to comply with the court order would necessitate a global block, impacting users outside of France who have legitimate reasons to access the content. The court, however, dismissed this claim, stating that “no quantifiable and verifiable technical evidence corroborates the technical difficulties of implementation invoked by the defense.”
ProtonVPN also argued that the order violated European net neutrality regulations, but the court found this argument “without foundation” due to a failure to specify which provisions of the regulation were being infringed.
While Canal+ secured the blocking orders, the court did deny two of their requests. Canal+ sought to compel ProtonVPN to publish the court’s decision on its website for three months, a measure the court deemed overly stigmatizing. They also failed to secure a reimbursement of €30,000 in legal fees.
The French approach to blocking access to these sites is dynamic. The French regulatory body, Arcom, has the authority to add new domain names and mirror sites to the blocklist without requiring further judicial proceedings, following verification. This means the list of blocked sites is subject to change.
The legal battles are not over. ProtonVPN has announced its intention to appeal the VPN blocking issue to the highest European court, a process that is expected to take several months. This appeal will likely focus on the fundamental questions of technical feasibility and the implications for online privacy and freedom of access to information.
The sites Canal+ requested be blocked for football streams include: abbasport.online, antenaplanet.store, antenawest.store, daddylive.dad, foot22.ru, miztv.top, tous-sports.ru, andrenalynrushplay.cfd, vidembed.re, bleedfilter.net, alldownplay.xyz, catchthrust.net, 4kultramedia.fr, smart.stella.cx, franceiptvabonnement.fr, and slayvision.xyz.
The sites targeted for rugby streams are: abbasport.online, antenashop.site, antenawest.store, canalsport.ru, daddylive2.top, sporttuna.click, antenaplanet.store, veplay.top, catchthrust.net, lefttoplay.xyz, home.sporttuna.vip, sporttuna.website, zukiplay.cfd, iptv-pro.co, and atlaspro.tv.
This ongoing legal conflict highlights the increasing tension between copyright enforcement and the privacy-enhancing capabilities of VPNs. The French government’s aggressive stance signals a broader trend of attempting to regulate VPNs in the interest of protecting intellectual property rights, raising concerns about the potential impact on user privacy and the open internet.
