- France issues new blocking order against five major VPNs
- VPNs must block access to 13 illegal football streaming sites
- This is the third such decision against VPNs since May 2025.
A Paris court has ordered five well-known VPN providers to block access to illegal sports streaming sites.
The order, dated December 18, forces NordVPN, Surfshark, Proton VPN, ExpressVPN and CyberGhost to restrict access to 13 piracy sites, thus vindicating the Professional Football League (LFP).
The decision, first reported by TorrentFreak this week, echoes a similar order issued against the same VPN companies last May, which required those services to block access to 203 domains linked to illegal sports streaming. At the time, the VPN industry warned that the move set “a dangerous precedent”, warning of a chilling effect on online privacy and security.
These concerns appear to be well-founded. Since the historic decision in May, other VPN blocking orders followed in June and July at the request of French channels beIN Sports and Canal+.
What does the blocking order say?
According to the most recent decision, the five VPN providers are required to put in place “any effective means” to prevent access to the 13 domains from France within three days of the decision.
The measures apply for the duration of the 2025/2026 football season, which is due to end on May 24, 2026.
The list of sites concerned may be extended throughout the season at the request of the LFP, via the regulatory authority ARCOM.
Judge rejects VPN defense
VPN providers raised several legal and technical arguments against the blocking order, which the judge rejected.
NordVPN and Surfshark have argued that their no-logs infrastructure prevents them from identifying users based in France. The companies warned that collecting real geolocation data from users would violate their contractual obligations.
The court responded that blocking access to illegal domains does not imply that the service must permanently store user information.
VPN providers also contested the definition of “technical intermediaries” provided for in Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code. The judge rejected this argument, identifying VPNs as key intermediaries in online piracy and finding them legally responsible.
According to VPN companies, blocking measures are also ineffective and easy to circumvent, as users could switch to another VPN or DNS service.
What’s next?
We have contacted the affected VPN providers to understand how they plan to comply with the order and to clarify the implications for their users in France.
A NordVPN spokesperson confirmed to TechRadar that the company has already launched an appeal, arguing that blocking does not eliminate the content itself or reduce incentives for piracy.
“Effective piracy control should focus on eliminating the source of content, targeting hosting providers, stopping funding of illegal operations, and increasing the availability of legitimate content,” NordVPN said.
The provider also warned that these orders unfairly target established paid VPN services while leaving free alternatives largely untouched. “Free VPNs are often harder to regulate, and because users looking to avoid paying for content are unlikely to pay for a VPN, these services remain a loophole for hackers to bypass restrictions,” NordVPN added.
Surfshark previously told TechRadar it plans to appeal the May ruling. We anticipate that the provider will likely file a similar challenge to this latest order.
Follow TechRadar on Google News And add us as your favorite source to get our news, reviews and expert opinions in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
