Pull to refresh
Logo
Paris court spares Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 from piracy blocking penalties

Paris court spares Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 from piracy blocking penalties

Rule Changes

Ruling says CDN blocking satisfies French piracy orders, leaving the public DNS resolver untouched

September 17th, 2026: Paris court rejects Canal+ penalty request against Cloudflare

Overview

Updated 2 hours ago

A Paris court has refused to fine Cloudflare for leaving its public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 out of court-ordered piracy blocking. Canal+ wanted €50,000 a day for every pirate Formula 1 and MotoGP site that stayed reachable through the resolver.

The court ruled that blocking through Cloudflare's content delivery network was enough. It cited a 2014 European Court of Justice decision that intermediaries owe reasonable measures, not guaranteed results. Canal+ can appeal.

Why it matters

If this ruling holds, public DNS resolvers stay free of court-ordered blocking in France, and rights holders must chase pirates through other means.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

€50,000
Daily penalty per site Canal+ sought
Canal+ wanted this amount for every pirate site that stayed reachable through 1.1.1.1.
72.6%
Share of targeted domains Cloudflare blocked
Canal+'s own statistics showed Cloudflare blocked 72.6% of targeted domains through its CDN.
1,238
Domains geoblocked in France through CDN
Cloudflare geoblocked 1,238 domains in France in the second half of 2025 under a single court order.
37
Domains ordered blocked in April 2026
21 Formula 1 and 16 MotoGP domains covered by the April court orders.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

March 2014 September 2026

4 events Latest: September 17th, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Tap a bar to jump to that date

Scenarios

1

Canal+ wins appeal, 1.1.1.1 forced to block

Unlikely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: TorrentFreak, L'Informé

Canal+ appeals the September 17 ruling to a higher French court. If the appeal succeeds, Cloudflare would be ordered to block pirate domains through 1.1.1.1, setting a French precedent that public DNS resolvers must enforce piracy blocks. The appeal would need to overcome the court's finding that Canal+'s own statistics showed Cloudflare made genuine efforts.

2

Quad9 forced to block or leave France

Possible Resolves by End of 2026

Discussed by: TorrentFreak, L'Informé

beIN Sports wins its case against Quad9, which has no CDN to block through. The Swiss non-profit either complies with DNS blocking or suspends service in France, as Cisco did with OpenDNS in Belgium. The Cloudflare ruling doesn't protect Quad9 because it has no alternative blocking method.

3

Ruling stands, rights holders adapt

Likely Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: TorrentFreak

Canal+ appeal fails or is dropped. The ruling becomes the French standard: CDN blocking satisfies piracy orders, and public DNS resolvers stay untouched. Rights holders must report new pirate mirrors to Arcom and pursue fresh orders against new intermediaries, continuing the whack-a-mole pattern.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

March 2014

UPC Telekabel Wien (2014)

The EU Court of Justice ruled that internet intermediaries can be ordered to block copyright-infringing content, but only with measures that strike a fair balance between rights holders and users. The ruling established the 'reasonable measures' standard for blocking orders.

Then

The ruling became the legal foundation for site-blocking orders across Europe.

Now

It established that intermediaries owe an obligation of means, not results, when blocking infringing content.

Why this matters now

The Paris court explicitly cited this ruling to reject Canal+'s penalty request against Cloudflare.

2012

UK Pirate Bay blocking (2012)

British courts ordered major ISPs to block The Pirate Bay, the first such order in the UK. This launched a wave of site-blocking orders across Europe.

Then

The Pirate Bay remained accessible through mirrors and proxy sites.

Now

Site blocking became a standard remedy, but pirates adapted quickly, forcing rights holders into a constant game of whack-a-mole.

Why this matters now

Shows the pattern of pirates adapting to blocking, which the Paris court cited as a reason Cloudflare can't be held responsible for every workaround.

August 2026

Belgian DNS blocking orders (2026)

A Brussels court upheld orders requiring Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block pirate football streams through their public DNS resolvers, rejecting their challenge. The court imposed daily penalties of €100,000 for non-compliance.

Then

The companies face daily fines if they don't block through their resolvers.

Now

Creates a split with the French ruling on whether public DNS resolvers must block pirate content.

Why this matters now

Shows European courts are divided on whether public DNS resolvers must block pirate content, with Belgium and France reaching opposite conclusions.

Sources

(7)