TL;DR
A Paris judicial order requires CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN and Surfshark to block access to a set of live sports streaming domains in France, classifying VPNs as "technical intermediaries" under the French Sports Code. The court rejected VPNs' "no-log" and other defenses and allowed LFP, via ARCOM, to add new domains during the 2025/2026 season.
What happened
On December 18 the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris issued a ruling directing CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN and Surfshark to block access from France to an initial list of 13 domains that host or link to pirated sports streams. The order treats the named VPN providers as "technical intermediaries" under the French Sports Code and permits the supervising authority ARCOM to add mirror or proxy domains dynamically if new evasions appear. The blocks are set to remain in force for the 2025/2026 football season. VPN vendors argued several defenses in court — notably that "no‑log" policies prevent geo‑targeted blocking and that they are not intermediaries — but the judge rejected these points, finding that forcing access restrictions from France does not amount to an unlawful general monitoring obligation and does not require retention of user data. The order does not prescribe specific technical measures, leaving implementation methods to the providers. NordVPN says it has appealed the ruling.
Why it matters
- The decision establishes a legal precedent in France that VPN services can be ordered to block specific sites under the Sports Code.
- Courts may treat contractual "no‑log" claims as insufficient to avoid compliance with targeted blocking orders.
- Dynamic domain lists managed via ARCOM enable rights holders to respond quickly to mirror and proxy creation during a season.
- The ruling broadens the set of intermediaries (beyond ISPs and DNS resolvers) that rights holders can target to limit access to pirated live sports.
Key facts
- Ruling date: December 18, issued by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris.
- Targeted VPNs: CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN and Surfshark.
- Initial list: 13 domains (examples include miztv.top, strikeout.im and prosmarterstv.com).
- Scope: Blocks can be extended by ARCOM and remain active for the 2025/2026 football season.
- Legal classification: Court considered the VPNs to be "technical intermediaries" under Article L.333‑10 of the Sports Code.
- Defenses rejected: the court dismissed the "no‑log" contractual defense and arguments about disproportionate or ineffective measures.
- Prior context: Paris judges previously ordered DNS resolvers and other intermediaries to block piracy sites after requests from rights holders.
- Implementation: the order does not specify technical blocking methods; providers may choose how to comply.
- Appeal: NordVPN confirmed an appeal against the decision.
What to watch next
- Outcome of pending appeals by affected VPN providers, including NordVPN.
- How each provider implements the blocks in technical terms (the order does not specify methods).
- Whether ARCOM expands the domain list during the 2025/2026 season.
- Whether any VPNs decide to exit the French market (not confirmed in the source).
Quick glossary
- VPN (Virtual Private Network): A service that encrypts a user's internet connection and can route traffic through remote servers to mask the device's public IP address and apparent location.
- DNS resolver: A system that translates human‑readable domain names (like example.com) into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate.
- ARCOM: France's audiovisual and digital regulator; in this context it oversees and can update domain lists targeted by blocking orders.
- No‑log policy: A provider statement that it does not retain records of users' activity or identifying connection logs.
- Technical intermediary: An entity that enables transmission or access to online content, which may be subject to specific legal duties under sectoral law.
Reader FAQ
Which VPN providers are affected by the order?
CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN and Surfshark.
How long do the blocks remain in force?
The order covers the 2025/2026 football season; ARCOM can add domains during that period.
Can VPNs rely on "no‑log" promises to refuse compliance?
The court rejected the "no‑log" defense in this case, ruling such contractual terms cannot be invoked to avoid the blocking order.
Does the order specify how to technically block the sites?
No. The ruling does not mandate particular technical measures; providers are free to choose how to make the domains unavailable from France.
Will this ruling apply outside France?
Not confirmed in the source.
HOME > PIRACY > A new order from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris requires several popular VPNs to block access to live sports streaming sites. The order, directed at CyberGhost,…
Sources
- French Court Orders Popular VPNs to Block More Pirate Sites, Despite Opposition
- Court orders five VPNs to block illegal sports sites
- CANAL+ OBTAINS A COURT ORDER FROM THE PARIS …
- CANAL+ Secures Court Order in France to Prevent Illegal …
Related posts
- US regulator orders GM to curb customer tracking in connected cars
- Setapp Mobile shutters iPhone app store, cites Apple business terms
- Woman bailed as police probe alleged data theft at Walsall GP surgery