Could VPNs Be Forced to Block Illegal Sports Streams in the EU?

The European Union is increasing pressure on online services to respond more effectively to illegal sports streaming. But does that mean VPN providers could be required to block access to pirate streams?

The short answer is more current than most coverage suggests. There is still no EU-wide law that forces every VPN provider to block illegal sports streams. But this is no longer a purely hypothetical question: courts in France and Spain have already issued binding orders compelling specific, named VPN providers to block sports-piracy sites, repeatedly, since May 2025 — and the European Commission is actively reviewing whether EU-level action on intermediaries, including VPNs, is needed.

What has the EU done so far about illegal sports streaming?

In May 2023, the European Commission adopted Recommendation (EU) 2023/1018 on combating online piracy of sports and other live events, published in the EU's Official Journal on 24 May 2023. It's worth being precise about what this is: a recommendation, not a regulation or directive. It doesn't create binding legal obligations on its own.

The Recommendation encourages EU Member States, national authorities, rights holders and intermediary services to take "effective, appropriate and proportionate" action against unauthorised retransmission of live sports and other live events. Its three main strands are faster handling of takedown notices by hosting providers, wider use of so-called dynamic injunctions, and better cooperation between rights holders, intermediaries and national authorities.

The Commission reviewed how things were going in a November 2025 assessment and found real progress — more use of dynamic injunctions, better cooperation — but concluded that piracy of live events had not been meaningfully reduced overall.

Are VPN providers currently required to block these streams under EU law?

At the level of EU legislation, no. There is no binding EU-wide law that requires a VPN provider to block illegal sports streams simply because it operates a VPN service.

But that's not quite the full picture. Recital 30 of the 2023 Recommendation already acknowledges that while blocking injunctions are typically aimed at internet access providers, "other providers of intermediary services may be misused" to enable unauthorised retransmissions or to circumvent existing blocks — and it specifically names alternative DNS resolvers and proxy services "such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" as an example. That single sentence, written back in 2023, is effectively what has since played out in national courts.

So the accurate statement is: no EU obligation exists today, but the EU has been aware since 2023 that VPNs could become a target of these measures — and, as the next section shows, some Member States have already gone there.

Where VPN blocking is already happening: France, Spain and Italy

France: repeated Paris court orders since May 2025

France has gone the furthest. On 15 May 2025, the Paris Judicial Court ordered NordVPN, CyberGhost, Surfshark, ExpressVPN and Proton to block 203 domain names used to illegally stream the UEFA Champions League, the Premier League and Top 14 rugby, in a case brought by broadcaster Canal+ and France's professional football league, the LFP. It was described at the time as a legal first — the first ruling anywhere requiring VPN providers to implement blocking measures.

The court relied on Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, which lets rights holders seek injunctions against "technical intermediaries" involved in unauthorised retransmission. The VPN providers argued the law didn't apply to them; the court disagreed.

That wasn't a one-off. Paris courts issued further orders against the same five providers on 18 December 2025 (13 more domains), and separate orders specifically against NordVPN and Surfshark in January and April 2026 covering Premier League and Formula 1/MotoGP rights. On 17 July 2026, the court issued a fresh batch of 14 orders for the 2026/2027 season — this time naming Proton, CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, while NordVPN and Surfshark were left out without an explanation. In that same ruling, the court refused a request from CyberGhost and ExpressVPN to pause the case and refer questions to the EU's top court, saying the underlying EU directive they cited doesn't apply directly between private companies.

Spain: a court order against NordVPN and Proton VPN

Spain followed a similar path. On 17 February 2026, a commercial court in Córdoba ordered NordVPN and Proton VPN to block access to 16 websites accused of illegally streaming LaLiga football matches, at the request of LaLiga and Telefónica. The Spanish ruling is notable for two reasons: it was issued ex parte — without the VPN providers being heard first — and it was explicitly described as non-appealable. LaLiga said the ruling recognised VPN providers as "technological intermediaries" under the EU's Digital Services Act.

Proton VPN publicly objected that it had not been notified the case even existed until the ruling was announced, arguing that a judicial order issued without giving the affected party a chance to respond would be procedurally invalid under basic due-process principles. That objection remains contested.

Italy: VPNs named under the Piracy Shield system

Italy's telecoms regulator AGCOM already runs a blocking system known as Piracy Shield, and the Commission's November 2025 assessment notes that AGCOM's injunctions are also meant to be implemented by intermediaries including VPN providers and public DNS resolvers, not just internet service providers.

A new French law: automated, real-time blocking

On 21 July 2026, the French Parliament went a step further and adopted a national law amending Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code to allow the regulator ARCOM to run an automated, real-time blocking system. Instead of manually checking each newly identified pirate domain before it's blocked, rights holders will be able to feed new addresses to ISPs, DNS resolvers and VPN providers directly during a live broadcast, with ARCOM auditing the additions afterwards rather than approving them in advance. This is a French national law, not an EU rule, and — according to the reporting available at the time of writing — it had not yet entered into force, pending implementing measures.

So is this an EU rule, or is it a national one?

This is worth spelling out clearly, because headlines often blur the two. The French and Spanish orders above were issued by national courts, applying national law (the French Sports Code) or a national court's interpretation of an EU concept (Spain's reliance on the Digital Services Act's "intermediary" framing). They were not issued "by the EU," and no EU regulation currently requires other Member States to follow suit.

The European Commission's November 2025 assessment shows it is watching this national divergence closely. It explicitly says it will "consider further the contribution of different online intermediaries" — a category that includes VPNs — in discussions with the EU's Digital Services Act Board, and will explore whether new measures are needed for more consistent, EU-wide use of dynamic injunctions.

Why the "VPNs are lawful tools" court ruling doesn't change any of this

If you've seen a different, seemingly contradictory headline recently — that the EU's top court called VPNs "lawful technical tools" — it's easy to assume that ruling protects VPN providers from the blocking orders above. It doesn't, because it answers a completely different legal question.

On 9 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in Case C-788/24, a case involving the online publication of Anne Frank's diary. The Court held that a website using effective, "state of the art" geo-blocking doesn't infringe copyright in a country where a work is still protected, even if some users bypass that geo-blocking with a VPN — and that the VPN provider isn't liable for that circumvention. The Court described VPNs as "lawful technical tools."

That's a ruling about copyright liability for enabling geo-block circumvention. It's a different question from whether a court can order a VPN provider, as a technical intermediary, to actively block specific pirate domains under a blocking injunction. The Paris Judicial Court made this distinction explicit in its own July 2026 ruling: when CyberGhost and ExpressVPN tried to use the Anne Frank case to pause the VPN-blocking proceedings against them, the court refused, noting that the CJEU case concerned a different EU directive and lawful content — not pirated live sports streams.

Why dynamic blocking injunctions matter

Dynamic injunctions are the EU-encouraged mechanism behind much of this. Rather than requiring a fresh court case every time a pirate site changes domain, a dynamic injunction lets a blocking order automatically extend to new domains or IP addresses carrying the same illegal stream.

According to EUIPO monitoring data, between January 2024 and June 2025, 2,966 dynamic injunctions addressing live-event piracy, granted by authorities in six reporting EU Member States, resulted in 77,262 blocked domains and IP addresses. Thirteen Member States were reported to have this type of injunction available in some form. The pace appears to be accelerating: in the first half of 2025 alone, 579 injunctions led to 35,542 blocked addresses.

Use of these injunctions remains uneven across the EU — some Member States rely on them heavily, others barely at all — which is part of why users may already run into blocked pirate infrastructure in certain countries without a VPN provider itself being the specific target of the measure.

Could this become an EU-wide requirement?

That remains genuinely uncertain — and this article won't pretend otherwise.

In its November 2025 assessment, the Commission said it will examine "areas for potential further action" to address online piracy of live events at EU level, given that the 2023 Recommendation hasn't meaningfully reduced overall piracy. That could mean discussing binding obligations for intermediaries, or it could mean encouraging more consistent voluntary practice — the Commission hasn't committed to either path yet.

Separately, a study commissioned by the European Parliament, written by Professor Giovanni Maria Riccio of the University of Salerno, has recommended that the EU move from voluntary guidance to a binding regulation requiring streaming intermediaries — including VPN providers, DNS resolvers and content delivery networks — to take down pirate live streams within a strict time limit, modelled on Italy's Piracy Shield system. It's important to be clear about what this is: an academic study recommending a policy direction to lawmakers, not a Commission proposal or adopted law.

Whether the EU eventually moves toward binding, EU-wide rules covering VPNs is a live policy question. Claiming the EU is already preparing to force all VPNs to block sports streams goes beyond what the evidence currently supports.

What this means for VPN users

For the overwhelming majority of VPN users, nothing has fundamentally changed. Using a VPN for its ordinary, legitimate purposes — protecting your connection on public Wi-Fi, improving your online privacy, or securing your traffic while travelling — remains completely lawful and unaffected by any of this.

What hasn't changed either: a VPN does not make an illegal stream legal. Using a VPN to access pirated sports content doesn't change the legal status of that content, regardless of where you are.

If you're outside France or Spain, you're very unlikely to notice any practical difference from the specific orders described above. If you're in France or Spain and use one of the named providers, you may find that particular pirate domains are already blocked, or become blocked, as a direct result of these court orders — that's a consequence of the ruling against your provider in that country, not evidence that VPNs generally are being banned or becoming unreliable.

If you're weighing up whether a VPN is worth using at all, none of this changes the calculus for legitimate use cases. That's a separate question from using a VPN to try to reach an illegal stream. It's also worth distinguishing both from using a VPN to access your own legal streaming subscriptions while travelling — a lawful, common use case that these court orders are not targeting.

Frequently asked questions

Is there an EU law forcing VPNs to block sports streams?

No binding EU-wide law exists. But national courts in France and Spain have already issued binding orders forcing specific, named VPN providers to block sports-piracy sites, and the European Commission is reviewing whether EU-level action is needed.

Which VPN providers have been ordered to block sports streams?

In France, Paris courts have named NordVPN, Proton VPN, Surfshark, ExpressVPN and CyberGhost across various orders since May 2025 — not always all five at once. In Spain, a Córdoba court named NordVPN and Proton VPN in February 2026. Each order is specific to the providers named in it.

Does the CJEU ruling that VPNs are "lawful tools" protect them from these blocking orders?

No. That July 2026 ruling addressed a different legal question — copyright liability for enabling geo-block circumvention — not a court's power to order a technical intermediary to block specific pirate domains. A French court explicitly declined to apply that ruling to the VPN-blocking cases just days later.

Is it illegal to use a VPN to watch blocked sports streams?

Using a VPN itself is lawful. Using it to access pirated content doesn't make that content legal to access. This isn't legal advice about your individual situation — as a general practical matter, official, licensed broadcasters remain the option free of that legal uncertainty.

Will my VPN stop working because of this?

For most users, no. These orders require specific named providers to block specific pirate domains within France or Spain — they don't disable VPN functionality generally or affect legitimate uses like privacy protection or securing public Wi-Fi.

Bottom line

VPN providers are not currently subject to a general EU-wide obligation to block illegal sports streams — but the question stopped being purely hypothetical back in May 2025. Since then, courts in France and Spain have repeatedly ordered named VPN providers to block sports-piracy sites, France has passed a national law enabling real-time blocking, and the European Commission has said it's examining whether broader EU action on intermediaries, including VPNs, is warranted.

This is a fast-moving area — new court orders have appeared roughly every sports season since 2025 — and it will be revisited here if the EU proposes binding legislation or if further Member States follow France and Spain's lead. For now, ordinary, legitimate VPN use remains unaffected and lawful.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.