beIN Sports seeks high penalties against VPNs

beIN Sports requested up to 10,000 euros per day for each unblocked domain name from several technical intermediaries, including NordVPN, Surfshark, and Cloudflare, in an effort to combat sports piracy. The Paris judicial court rejected these requests, stating that the financial penalties were not justified.

Judicial court clarifies obligations of intermediaries

In two judgments issued on October 7, the Paris judicial court ruled that the measures taken by the technical intermediaries were sufficient to meet their obligations. The court emphasized that the providers were required to take reasonable steps to block access to pirated content, not to guarantee complete and permanent inaccessibility.

Background of the legal battle

The legal dispute began in May 2026, when beIN Sports, which holds the broadcasting rights for French WTA matches, obtained orders to block ten illegal sites through NordVPN, Surfshark, and Proton VPN. Cloudflare was also targeted the next day for seven platforms, but the implementation of these orders was limited and not fully effective.

Court rejects excessive penalties

The court ruled that the penalties requested by beIN Sports were excessive and disproportionate. The judges noted that the intermediaries had taken reasonable measures to limit access to pirated content, and therefore, the requested financial penalties were not warranted under the law.

Legal framework remains evolving

The case builds on a previous decision from September involving Canal+ and Cloudflare, reinforcing that the same legal reasoning applies to other intermediaries. However, the legal landscape remains unclear, as the Paris court of appeal has suspended another related case pending a decision from the Court of Cassation.

Challenges for intermediaries refusing to block

The situation is more complex for intermediaries that refuse to implement any blocking measures. Quad9, a Swiss DNS resolver also sued by beIN Sports, has not applied any of the ordered measures, citing technical limitations. It remains to be seen if the court will treat this lack of action the same way as the partial efforts of other providers.