French Court Orders Major VPNs to Block Pirate Sports Streaming Sites

The Paris Judicial Court has ordered the leading VPN providers — CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN and Surfshark — to block access to a list of pirate sports‑streaming sites for users located in France.

French Court Expands Anti‑Piracy Measures to VPN Services

In a landmark ruling issued on 18 December 2025, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris extended its anti‑piracy blocking orders beyond traditional Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to include major Virtual Private Network (VPN) operators. The decision follows a series of earlier orders that forced DNS resolvers such as Cloudflare and Google to block pirate domains. This time, the court targets the very tools that users rely on for privacy and geo‑circumvention, marking a significant escalation in France’s fight against illegal sports streaming.

What the Court Order Covers

The order, filed by the Ligue de Football Professionnel (LFP) and its commercial arm, obliges the five named VPN providers to block a dynamic list of 13 initial domains that host unauthorized streams of Ligue 1, Formula 1, MotoGP and other premium sports events. The list can be expanded by the French audiovisual regulator ARCOM whenever new mirrors or proxy sites appear, and the blocks will remain in force throughout the 2025/2026 football season.

By treating VPNs as “technical intermediaries” under Article L.333‑10 of the French Sports Code, the court rejects the long‑standing “no‑log” defence that many providers have relied on to argue they are neutral conduits rather than active participants in piracy.

VPN Providers Targeted by the Order

• CyberGhost – A European‑based service known for its user‑friendly apps and extensive server network.
• ExpressVPN – One of the most popular global VPNs, often praised for its speed and privacy policies.
• NordVPN – A market leader that markets a strict no‑logs guarantee and a large server footprint.
• ProtonVPN – Operated by the team behind ProtonMail, emphasizing end‑to‑end encryption.
• Surfshark – A fast‑growing provider that offers unlimited simultaneous connections.

All five firms were summoned to appear before the court. Except for ProtonVPN, each presented a “no‑log” defence, arguing that they do not retain IP addresses or geolocation data that would enable selective blocking. The court dismissed these arguments, stating that the act of transmitting data to a prohibited domain constitutes a “transmission” under French law, regardless of whether the VPN logs user activity.

Pirate Sports Streaming Sites on the Blocking List

The initial order names the following domains, with the possibility of further additions:

These domains are known to host live streams of Ligue 1 matches, Formula 1 races, MotoGP events and other premium sports content without the consent of rights holders. By targeting the VPNs, the court aims to close the “last mile” that allows French users to bypass ISP‑level blocks.

Legal Reasoning, Defenses, and the Court’s Response

Why the Court Considered VPNs Intermediaries

The judgment cites the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and French Sports Code, emphasizing that any service that “facilitates the transmission of illegal content” can be classified as a “technical intermediary.” The court argued that VPNs, while technically neutral, actively enable users to reach prohibited domains, thereby fulfilling the definition of transmission.

The “No‑Log” Defence

Surfshark and NordVPN contended that their strict no‑log policies prevent them from identifying French users, making selective blocking impossible without violating privacy commitments. The court rejected this, noting that the order does not require the VPNs to store user data; they merely need to prevent traffic destined for the listed domains from exiting French exit nodes.

Proportionality and Effectiveness Arguments

The providers also argued that blocking a handful of domains would be ineffective, as pirates can quickly spin up new mirrors. The judge countered that the order is “dynamic” – ARCOM can add new domains as they appear – and that the measure is proportionate because it targets only the specific infringing sites, not the entire VPN service.

Potential Impact on the VPN Industry and French Users

The ruling could set a precedent for other EU jurisdictions seeking to compel VPNs to enforce content‑blocking orders. If similar decisions spread across Europe, VPN providers may need to redesign their network architecture to support geo‑specific filtering, potentially increasing operational costs.

For privacy‑focused users, the order raises concerns about the erosion of the “no‑log” promise. While the court does not demand logging, it forces providers to maintain a list of French exit nodes and apply DNS‑level or IP‑level blocks, which could be perceived as a form of selective surveillance.

Some analysts predict that smaller, free VPN services—often less compliant with legal requests—might see a surge in usage as users look for workarounds. This could inadvertently shift traffic toward less secure solutions, undermining the very privacy protections that reputable VPNs aim to provide.

Why This Matters for AI‑Powered Platforms Like UBOS

The evolving regulatory landscape underscores the importance of building compliance‑by‑design into any internet‑facing platform. At UBOS homepage, we embed robust policy engines that can dynamically block or route traffic based on jurisdictional rules, ensuring that AI‑driven services stay on the right side of the law.

Our UBOS platform overview showcases a modular architecture where developers can plug in compliance modules—such as a “French Sports Blocker”—without rewriting core code. This flexibility is crucial for SaaS providers who must react quickly to court orders.

Moreover, the rise of AI marketing agents can help rights‑holders monitor piracy trends in real time, feeding actionable intelligence to regulators. By integrating with tools like the OpenAI ChatGPT integration or the ChatGPT and Telegram integration, stakeholders can receive instant alerts when new pirate domains surface.

For developers building custom anti‑piracy bots, the Chroma DB integration offers a vector‑search capable knowledge base, while the ElevenLabs AI voice integration can generate audible alerts for moderation teams.

What VPN Users Can Do Right Now

1. Check your provider’s compliance page for updates on the French blocking order.
2. Consider using split‑tunneling features to route only non‑French traffic through the VPN, if supported.
3. Stay informed about alternative privacy tools, such as AI Chatbot template‑driven assistants that can suggest legal streaming alternatives.
4. Review the AI SEO Analyzer to ensure your own content complies with copyright law.
5. Explore the AI Video Generator for creating original, licensed video assets.

Stay Ahead of the Curve with UBOS

Whether you are a developer, a rights‑holder, or a privacy‑conscious user, navigating the new French legal terrain requires tools that blend compliance, speed, and AI intelligence. Explore our UBOS templates for quick start, leverage the Web app editor on UBOS, and automate workflows with the Workflow automation studio.

Start a free trial today, join the UBOS partner program, and benefit from transparent UBOS pricing plans that scale with your needs.

Conclusion

The Paris Judicial Court’s decision to compel VPNs to block pirate streaming sites marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between copyright enforcement and online privacy. While the order may curb casual piracy, it also sets a legal precedent that could reshape how VPNs operate across Europe. Users should stay vigilant, providers must adapt quickly, and rights‑holders can leverage AI‑driven platforms like UBOS to stay one step ahead.

For a deeper dive into the court’s reasoning and the full list of domains, read the original TorrentFreak article.