European ISPs Seek Rightsholder Liability for Overblocking Damage

European ISPs Seek Rightsholder Liability for Overblocking Damage

EuroISPA Demands Rightsholder Accountability for Overblocking

EuroISPA, representing over 3,300 European internet service providers (ISPs), is calling on the European Commission to implement compensation mechanisms that hold rightsholders liable for the collateral damage caused by overbroad site-blocking orders. The association argues that rightsholders currently push for expansive blocking measures without facing direct liability when those measures result in "overblocking"—the accidental blocking of legitimate websites and services.

This request is part of a filing to the Commission’s ongoing assessment of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive. EuroISPA asserts that existing laws, specifically the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), already support such accountability, meaning no new legislation is required to enforce these protections.

The Failure of Broad Site Blocking

Broad site-blocking measures have shown limited effectiveness in reducing piracy while causing significant disruption to legitimate internet traffic. EuroISPA points to the European Commission’s own evaluation of the 2023 Recommendation on combating piracy of live events, which concluded that such measures had "limited positive effects" and did not lead to a substantial reduction in piracy.

EuroISPA argues that the current issue is not a lack of legislative framework, but rather a failure in the enforcement of existing law. Consequently, the association urges the Commission to prioritize the implementation of current laws over the introduction of new enforcement obligations.

Case Studies in Collateral Damage

Overblocking has evolved from simple domain blocks to IP-level blocking and the targeting of intermediaries like DNS resolvers and VPN providers. This has led to widespread service disruptions across several EU member states:

  • Italy: The use of Piracy Shield’s IP-level blocking resulted in collateral damage to over 7,700 domain names. Additionally, a Portuguese hosting provider lost email connectivity with Italian customers for 16 days, and the regulator AGCOM fined Cloudflare 14 million euros after the company declined to comply with blocking demands.
  • Spain: Blocking orders obtained by LaLiga targeting shared IP addresses caused millions of users to lose access to banking apps, developer tools, and payment platforms.
  • France and Belgium: Cisco pulled OpenDNS from France in 2024 and Belgium in 2025 due to piracy blocking orders. While service resumed in Belgium following an appeal, the outcome of such cases remains a critical precedent for the scope of future blocking orders.

Structural Burdens on Small Providers

Beyond the technical damage, EuroISPA highlights a structural imbalance created by rapid blocking requirements. In Italy, for example, providers are required to implement blockades within 30 minutes. EuroISPA notes that these aggressive timeframes place a disproportionate burden on smaller ISPs and service providers who lack the automated tools or staffing to manage such requests without causing collateral damage.

Community Perspectives on Digital Censorship

Industry observers and users have expressed strong support for the shift toward rightsholder liability, viewing the current system as an abuse of power by copyright holders.

"Enforcement should be a cost/benefit analysis. RN, there is very little cost imposed on the alleged rightsholders, so they spam freely."

Critics argue that the lack of consequences for rightsholders encourages "spam" blocking requests. Users in Spain specifically highlighted the severe disruption to essential services, noting that legitimate internet use is frequently interrupted during major soccer matches due to LaLiga's blocking efforts. Some observers also draw parallels to the US DMCA takedown system, suggesting that a global trend toward unaccountable censorship is emerging where the burden of proof and cost of error fall entirely on the intermediaries rather than the rightsholders.

Sources