France's push to block VPNs for sports piracy sparks global debate on anti-piracy measures and digital privacy.
France’s new anti-piracy rules target VPNs
A new report by the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) has drawn attention to France’s recent decision to require virtual private network (VPN) providers to block access to pirated sites. The move is part of a larger effort to reduce sports piracy by targeting intermediaries that enable access to illegal content.Legal basis for blocking VPNs in France
In France, the actions against major VPNs like NordVPN and Surfshark are based on a 2021 law that allows for blocking measures against intermediaries that facilitate sports piracy. This law gives rights holders the power to request that internet service providers and other platforms block access to pirated content.Concerns about privacy and overreach
The i2Coalition has raised concerns about the potential consequences of expanding anti-piracy measures to include new technical intermediaries like VPNs. It argues that the effectiveness of such measures and their impact on user privacy and legitimate online activities have not been adequately studied.French courts begin to set boundaries
Recent court rulings in France suggest that the limits of these blocking obligations are being examined. A recent decision found that efforts by NordVPN and Surfshark were sufficient even if not all pirated sites were blocked, showing that legal clarity is slowly emerging.U.S. lawmakers debate similar measures
In the United States, two legislative proposals are in conflict over whether to require VPN providers to block access to pirated content. The American Copyright Protection Act would target providers with large user bases, while the DEFEND IP Act excludes pure VPN companies, though not those offering additional services.Global debate on anti-piracy scope
The tension between anti-piracy efforts and the rights of users and service providers is not limited to France. The differing approaches in the U.S. highlight a broader question: how far should anti-piracy obligations extend to services that serve many purposes beyond accessing illegal content?
