Google has asked the European Commission to set limits on anti-piracy orders targeting IP addresses, DNS resolvers, virtual private networks, and CDN providers. The company argues that these measures can disrupt legal services sharing infrastructure with infringing websites and that they rarely remove content at its source.
In its response to the European copyright consultation dated 07/03/2026, Google cites as an example a court order issued in Spain at the request of a “sports league.” Although it does not explicitly name LaLiga, it states that the blockade ended up affecting third-party platforms, cloud services, APIs, and small business websites. The tech giant presents this episode as evidence of the harm that dynamic blacklists can cause during live events.
How a blockade against a pirated stream can affect legitimate services
The issue stems from a technical simplification: treating an IP address as if it exclusively identifies a single webpage. In much of the current internet, this is no longer accurate.
Cloud providers, content delivery networks, and reverse proxies cluster multiple domains behind a limited set of addresses. This model makes better use of available IPv4 addresses, distributes requests across multiple servers, absorbs attacks, and brings content closer to users.
When a shared IP is listed in a blacklist, operators often cannot distinguish which specific domain should be restricted. As a result, all services passing through that address can be cut off, even if only one involves unauthorised streaming.
| Blocked Layer | Possible Side Effect |
|---|---|
| Shared IP address | Disruption of multiple websites, APIs, and apps |
| CDN or reverse proxy | Blocking different clients hosted on the same network |
| Domain name | Inaccessibility of all its sections, legal or not |
| DNS resolver | Inability to translate the domain to its IP address |
| VPN | Restrictions on corporate traffic and legitimate private connections |
| Cloud platform | Damage to client loads unrelated to the infringement |
This problem is magnified with dynamic blocklists. During a match, rights holders need to react before the stream ends. Addresses can be quickly added to the list and distributed among operators so that access is cut off almost in real-time.
This urgency reduces the opportunity to check which other services use the same infrastructure. It also makes it harder for legitimate website owners to know what happened. From their perspective, the site stops responding to certain Spanish operators while still functioning normally from other networks or countries.
The issue might appear as a server outage, DNS problem, firewall misconfiguration, or DDoS attack. The investigation falls on the system administrator, though the root cause may be outside their infrastructure.
Google claims these types of measures have caused widespread damage across several European countries. Specifically, in Spain, the document explicitly mentions the blocking of cloud services, platforms, APIs, and SME websites as a result of a sports federation’s claim.
The company does not provide a comprehensive list of affected domains nor an economic estimate of the damages. Its argument relies on a well-known feature of modern architectures: blocking a shared IP address offers very limited discrimination capacity.
Why Google opposes extending orders to DNS, CDN, and VPN infrastructure
The document does not oppose rights holders acting against illegal streams. However, Google disagrees with the technical layer targeted and with how easily orders can be extended to intermediaries that do not host the content.
A CDN handles user requests,Protects the origin server, and delivers copies from distributed nodes. While it can hide the real IP of the hosting server, that doesn’t necessarily give control over the website or its content.
DNS does not carry the video. It translates a human-readable name, like a domain, into an IP address usable by devices. Blocking at the resolver level prevents access to the service, but the file remains on the server and can be retrieved through other means.
VPNs add another layer of complexity. They are used to connect remote workers to corporate networks, protect communications on public networks, or keep internal services separated from the internet. They can also be used to bypass restrictions, but the technology itself is not illegal.
Google maintains that blocking these infrastructures is easily circumvented. The offender can change IPs, providers, domains, or distribution networks. Users can switch to another DNS or different connection. The content remains available; access is only temporarily made more difficult from some points in the network.
The company proposes first targeting the source layer. This involves identifying the responsible website, sending a notification to the hosting provider, and attempting to remove the stream at its source.
It also advocates for economic measures. The approach known as follow the money aims to cut advertising, payments, and other revenue sources for commercial piracy platforms. Google argues that attacking the business model can be more sustainable than continually adding addresses to a list.
Within its own services, Google mentions mechanisms like removing search results, reducing visibility of domains with valid complaints, detecting streams on YouTube, and pre-emptively flagging pages advertising illegal future live events.
While these tools are not error-proof, they link actions to specific content or pages. IP blocking works at a lower level, where the network only knows the destination address but often lacks enough context to distinguish one website from another.
What Google proposes before blocking infrastructure
The company requests that orders against intermediaries be used as a last resort. The applicant should demonstrate that they tried to contact the infringing party, that notifications to hosting providers failed, and that removal at the source is insufficient.
Furthermore, courts should verify at least four elements: rights ownership, existence of infringement, alleged harm, and potential impact on users and third parties.
Google criticizes that judges and administrative bodies may act as mere “mailboxes,” turning private lists into enforceable orders without effective review. In their view, speed should not eliminate proportionality review.
The proposal includes additional safeguards:
- Publish decisions and their scope;
- Explain the reason for the blockade;
- Limit orders temporarily;
- Allow third parties to request suspension;
- Judicial review for extensions;
- Avoid broad monitoring obligations;
- Share costs between rights holders and intermediaries.
Transparency is especially important for technical teams. A wrongly blocked page needs to know which address was included, for how long, by which authority, and through which procedure they can file an appeal.
Without this information, diagnosis depends on tests from different operators, DNS checks, network traces, and geographic comparisons. For small businesses without specialized staff, the problem can persist until the restriction is lifted automatically.
The LaLiga case brings the debate on internet regulation to Europe
LaLiga and other sports rights owners argue that combating sports piracy requires quick action. A match streamed without authorization loses its commercial value immediately upon airing, so a removal the next day arrives too late.
Pirates exploit this window. They change domains, move streams between providers, and use intermediary networks to complicate locating the original server. Dynamic blocking attempts to address this mobility.
Thus, the technical debate isn’t whether illegal streaming should be pursued but how much risk to third parties can be accepted and which intermediaries should be involved in enforcement.
Google has a direct stake in the outcome. It operates cloud services, DNS resolvers, video platforms, and search tools. Expanding orders against global infrastructure could impose new obligations and impact its clients.
This does not negate the core issue: today’s internet relies on shared addresses, load balancers, CDNs, and distributed services. A blocking system designed for an era when each IP pointed to a single server can be too blunt in a multi-tenant environment.
The European Commission will decide whether to harmonize live blocking models or first reinforce safeguards outlined in the Digital Services Act. Google specifically references Article 9 of that regulation, which covers measures against illegal content, and the prohibition on imposing broad monitoring obligations on intermediaries.
The outcome will affect telecom operators, cloud providers, CDNs, VPN services, system administrators, and companies relying on APIs or websites. A mistaken list could turn a football dispute into widespread service disruptions unrelated to the content targeted.
Google’s position extends this debate beyond Spain into the future European copyright framework. Brussels will need to balance the urgency of live streams with an internet architecture where many services coexist on shared addresses without direct relation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Google directly mention LaLiga in its document?
No. It refers to a Spanish order requested by a sports league that affected cloud services, APIs, platforms, and SME pages.
Why does a CDN cause multiple websites to share an IP?
Because it receives traffic from many clients and distributes it through shared infrastructure. This improves performance and security but increases overreach risk.
Does Google want to stop all anti-piracy blocking?
No. It advocates for these measures as a last resort, targeting the layer closest to the content, and requiring judicial review for proportionality.
How can a company detect if its website is blocked?
By comparing access from different operators and locations, checking DNS resolution, and analyzing network paths. Google urges transparency and publication of orders to avoid blind investigations.
Sources:
