A recent French decision concerning illegal sports streaming sites and VPN providers lays the groundwork for similar decisions internationally. But some stakeholders caution about the effects that the decision will have on internet users.
Key takeaways
- On 15 May 2025, the Paris Judicial Court ruled in favour of CANAL+ (a leading French subscription broadcaster) and the Ligue de Football Professionel (LFP, the governing body that runs the major professional football leagues in France) in their action to restrict VPNs from providing access to illegal sports streaming sites.
- This decision is the first of its kind internationally and a landmark decision in terms of the message it sends to VPN providers about their responsibility in curbing illegal sports streaming.
- It also opens the door for similar rulings in other countries, such as Australia, including in other non-sporting contexts such as feature films and entertainment television programs.
- While Australian copyright laws empower the Federal Court to make website blocking orders, which could extend to VPN providers facilitating access to pirated content, rights holders in this country have historically been passive about availing themselves of such orders. The extent to which the CANAL+ ruling foreshadows changes in Australia is, therefore, unknown.
Background
In February 2025, CANAL+ and the LFP commenced an action to restrict VPN providers from allowing users to access illegal sports streaming sites. They argued that using VPNs to access these geo-blocked sites facilitates piracy and reduces the value of the media rights.
These claims were made on top of existing measures to prevent access to illegal sports streaming sites, such as ISP blocking, and form part of CANAL+’s longstanding efforts to hold technical intermediaries accountable for the role they play in the battle against piracy. In fact, in 2024 alone, CANAL+ obtained court orders to block over 1,300 domain names which hosted illegal streaming sites in France.
Reaction
In accordance with the ruling, VPN providers NordVPN, CyberGhost, Surfshark, ExpressVPN and Proton must block access to 203 illegal sports streaming sites that have been used to stream the UEFA Champions League, Premier League and TOP 14 matches, being events for which CANAL+ has exclusive broadcasting rights.
In a statement, CANAL+ praised the decision for being the first time that VPN providers were recognised as “technical intermediaries” and therefore have a certain level of responsibility for the content their users can access. They celebrated the decision as a “major step in the fight against sports piracy in France and beyond” calling the decision a “legal precedent”. On the other hand, internet industry bodies have lamented the decision and the effect it will have on internet privacy more generally. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition claims that the decision “misplaces responsibility” and threatens the privacy and security of millions of users in France and beyond. The VPN Trust Initiative similarly criticised the decision for “overstepping its legal boundaries” and ignoring European standards on proportionality and effectiveness. Both organisations question the effectiveness of “infrastructure-level blocking” arguing that it has failed in the past and is likewise bound to fail now.
What does the CANAL+ ruling mean for Australia?
Under Australian law, sports broadcasts are protected under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Australian copyright owners may apply to the court for an injunction to disable access to websites that infringe or facilitate the infringement of their copyright (see section 115A of the Copyright Act). Recourse is, therefore, generally available to copyright owners under Australian law who face similar problems to CANAL+.
This species of injunctive relief is not uncommon in the context of rights holders combatting copyright infringement against the illegal distribution of pirated content on the internet. For example, the Federal Court has granted four website blocking injunctions to Roadshow Films, Universal Music Australia and Foxtel in respect of ‘peer-to-peer streaming’ networks or websites facilitating the illegal distribution of feature films, television programs and music (these orders have been extended several times to capture additional infringing websites). That said, attributing responsibility to VPN providers to prevent access to these websites is a step further and is as yet unprecedented in Australia. The CANAL+ ruling in France breaks new ground in that regard.
Conclusion
Given the recency of the CANAL+ ruling in France, its global ripple effect is yet to be seen. However, the ruling carries great implications for VPN providers in the context of sports broadcasting, film and entertainment and beyond. On the broadcasting side, this decision is an important development as it requires VPN providers to take steps to ensure that users cannot access illegal sports streaming sites and may act as a turning point in the fight against piracy. More generally, this ruling could also extend to other forms of illegal websites. For example, where users are able to access illegal online content on offshore sites by using a VPN. Whether these possibilities eventuate remains to be seen, however, this ruling nevertheless marks a watershed moment in broadcasters’ ability to enforce and protect their rights.
To learn more about the decision and what it could possibly mean for you, please contact Partner Justine Munsie or Special Counsel Lachlan Gepp.