A court in Paris has ordered internet access providers, virtual private network services and public DNS resolvers to block 35 online resources accused of illegally retransmitting live events in France. The ruling stands out not only for its scale, but for how deep into the internet’s infrastructure it reaches, signaling a tougher phase in the country’s copyright enforcement strategy.
The order affects major access providers as well as alternative DNS services and well-known VPN companies, and it is set to remain in force until June 21, 2026. The blocked list can also grow in coordination with ARCOM, the French regulator, giving the decision a built-in mechanism for expansion rather than treating it as a one-off action.
A broader view of who is now responsible
French blocking orders have typically focused on access providers. This decision widens the circle. By pulling in DNS resolvers and VPN operators, the court is targeting tools many people use to route around ordinary website blocks. That matters because online piracy has long adapted faster than enforcement aimed at a single layer of the network. When one domain is blocked, mirrors, proxies and alternative resolution methods often appear quickly.
DNS services translate domain names into IP addresses, while VPNs can mask a user’s location and redirect traffic through another network. Neither was designed for piracy, and both serve legitimate privacy and security purposes. But from an enforcement perspective, they can also weaken the effect of domain-level restrictions. The French approach appears to reflect a view that blocking must reach intermediary services if court orders are to have practical force.
Why LaLiga was limited and beIN Sports France mattered
The ruling also draws a legal boundary around who may bring this kind of action in France. The court said LaLiga could not act directly as claimant under the relevant provisions of French law because it lacks the required state delegation. That point is significant: it shows that even in a case where alleged infringement is clear, standing still matters.
beIN Sports France, however, was able to establish that its exclusive rights in France were being violated. According to the case record described in the source material, the infringing sites were using its branding while retransmitting protected content. That gave the court a domestic rights holder with a direct legal basis to seek relief, anchoring the order in French jurisdiction rather than relying on a foreign organization’s claims alone.
What this means for the internet in France
The decision reflects a wider policy shift visible across Europe: copyright enforcement is moving beyond hosting platforms and internet access providers toward infrastructure services that sit deeper in the delivery chain. That raises difficult questions. Blocking can be effective in reducing casual access, yet it also risks affecting lawful uses of shared services, especially when orders are broad or updated over time.
For privacy companies and public internet resolvers, the case sharpens an old tension. They present themselves as neutral intermediaries that protect security, confidentiality and user choice. Rights holders and regulators increasingly argue that neutrality cannot mean inaction when services are repeatedly used to bypass court-ordered restrictions. Courts are being asked to decide where technical neutrality ends and legal responsibility begins.
A long enforcement horizon, with room to expand
The end date in 2026 and the possibility of adding more domains with ARCOM’s involvement suggest a durable enforcement model rather than a short campaign. That makes this ruling more than a dispute over 35 resources. It is a test of whether France can normalize infrastructure-level blocking as a standard remedy for copyright disputes involving live transmissions.
The likely result is not the disappearance of piracy, which has historically proved adaptable, but a higher cost of access and a more fragmented path around restrictions. For regulators, that may count as success. For critics, the concern will be whether tools built for exceptional cases become routine, with consequences that extend well beyond the original targets.
