For years, rightsholders have pushed for broader site blocking orders, with no direct liability if these result in overblocking. EuroISPA, which represents over 3,300 European internet service providers, is now asking the EU Commission to change that. The association points to a series of overblocking incidents in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere, where rightsholders were not held accountable.
Last year, EuroISPA warned the European Commission that site blocking was becoming disproportionate.
Fast-forward a year, and the providers’ concerns have only grown.
In a new filing to the Commission’s ongoing assessment of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, EuroISPA once again sounds the alarm, pointing out that the piracy blocking climate in some countries is getting more extreme.
EuroISPA starts by explicitly referencing the Commission’s own conclusions. Its evaluation of the 2023 Recommendation on combating piracy of live events concluded that the measures had “limited positive effects” and did not lead to a substantial reduction in piracy.
“This finding is an important baseline for this consultation: it suggests that in many cases the problem lies in the enforcement of existing law, not in a gap in the legislative framework,” the ISP organization notes.
The European Commission should prioritize the implementation of current law, instead of introducing any new enforcement obligations, the filing argues. That doesn’t mean that everything is functioning fine now. On the contrary, the ISPs flag a myriad of overblocking incidents.
Blocking Goes Beyond ISPs
In recent years, site blocking orders have expanded to other intermediaries, including DNS resolvers and VPN providers. This is problematic, EuroISPA argues, as these services have no direct link to the infringing content and often lack the technical means to implement geographically restricted blocks.
This expansion, combined with various overblocking incidents throughout Europe, is problematic, the ISP association notes, while listing various examples.
In Italy, Piracy Shield’s IP-level blocking caused collateral damage to over 7,700 domain names. In addition, a Portuguese hosting provider lost email connectivity with Italian customers for 16 days. When Cloudflare declined to comply with blocking demands, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM fined it 14 million euros.
In Spain, LaLiga obtained a blocking order that targeted shared IP addresses, which were also used by thousands of legitimate sites. EuroISPA says that millions of Spanish internet users have lost access to banking apps, developer tools, and payment platforms, as a result of the site blocking measures.
In Belgium and France, site blocking is also expanding. Cisco pulled OpenDNS from France in 2024 and Belgium in 2025, after being ordered to block pirate sites. It resumed its service in Belgium when it appealed this decision, which could have far-reaching consequences.
“The outcome of that appeal may have significant consequences for the scope of future blocking orders across the EU, as the trend of extending obligations to DNS resolvers and VPN providers continues to grow across Member States,” EuroISPA notes.
Overblocking Accountability
The ISP organization cites the CEPS report published in April, which cautioned against IP-address blocking.
The same report also recommended that rightsholders should be held liable for overblocking damage. EuroISPA is now making the same demand directly to the Commission. This doesn’t require any new legislation, as EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) supports it.
EuroISPA argues that “rightsholders should be held accountable” for “collateral damage caused by overbroad blocking actions, with compensation mechanisms that are clearly defined and enforceable.”
Accountability
The ISP organization also argued against the rapid blocking requirements, which require services to implement blockades in a short timeframe. That would include Italy, where providers have to take action within 30 minutes, which can be problematic for smaller companies.
“The current absence of such mechanisms creates a structural burden that falls disproportionately on smaller providers,” the submission notes.
Whether the Commission will pick up these suggestions has yet to be seen. For now, the CDSM review continues, which will undoubtedly also see calls from rightsholders to further expand the current site blocking powers.
—
A copy of EuroISPA’s submission to the European Commission’s CDSM review is available here (pdf).