COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Assessment of the effects of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/1018 of 4 May 2023 on combating online piracy of sports and other live events
Date: 2025-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual piracy, broadcasting, computer piracy, copyright, cultural event, injunction, professional sport, provision of services, sporting event

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.11.2025  SWD(2025) 384 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Assessment of the effects of    Commission Recommendation  (EU) 2023/1018 of 4 May 2023 on combating online piracy of sports and other live events     
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 2 

2.  MONITORING OF THE RECOMMENDATION ........................................................... 3 

A.  Monitoring of the effects of the Recommendation by the EUIPO Observatory .............. 3 

B.  Dedicated network of national administrative authorities ............................................ 3 

C.  The Commission’s call for evidence ............................................................................. 4 

3.  EVOLUTION OF PIRACY OF LIVE EVENTS .............................................................. 4 

4.  ENSURING THE PROMPT TREATMENT OF NOTICES RELATED TO 
UNAUTHORISED RETRANSMISSIONS .............................................................................. 7 

A. Evidence gathered on the treatment of notices ................................................................. 7 

B. Remaining concerns of rightholders and intermediaries ................................................ 10 

5. 

INJUNCTIONS ADDRESSING UNAUTHORISED RETRANSMISSIONS ................... 11 

A.  Legal standing for sports event organisers ................................................................. 12 

B.  Dynamic nature of the injunctions ............................................................................ 13 

C.  New addressees of injunctions ................................................................................... 15 

D.  Safeguards applicable to injunctions ......................................................................... 16 

E.  Overall assessment ................................................................................................... 17 

6.  COOPERATION .......................................................................................................... 19 

A.  Cooperation between holders of rights and providers of intermediary services ........... 19 

B.  Cooperation between public authorities .................................................................... 20 

7.  RAISING AWARENESS AND ENHANCING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL 
OFFERS.............................................................................................................................. 21 

A.  Availability, affordability and attractiveness of commercial offers .......................... 22 

B.  Awareness raising activities by Member States ...................................................... 23 

8.  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 24 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

In May 2023, the Commission adopted the Recommendation on combating online piracy of 
sports and other live events (“Recommendation”). The aim of the Recommendation is to assist 
Member  States,  national  authorities,  rightholders  and  providers  of  intermediary  services  in 
making the best use of existing legal remedies to tackle the unauthorised retransmissions of 
live events.  

The  Recommendation  encourages  the  relevant  stakeholders  to  take  effective,  balanced  and 
appropriate measures, in particular regarding the prompt treatment of notices by intermediaries 
and the use of dynamic injunctions in Member States, subject to appropriate safeguards. It also 
aims  at  fostering  cooperation  among  the  different  market  players  and  among  national 
authorities across the EU. Finally, the Recommendation encourages market players to increase 
the availability, affordability and attractiveness of commercial offers for end users and stresses 
the importance of awareness-raising activities. 

The Recommendation builds on the relevant provisions of Directive 2001/29/EC1 (“InfoSoc 
Directive”), Directive 2004/48/EC2 (“IPRED”), and the Digital Services Act (“DSA”)3.  

The DSA was adopted shortly before the Recommendation and became fully applicable on 17 
February 2024. It introduced several provisions that are particularly relevant to the fight against 
online  piracy.  These  include:  (i)  procedural  rules  on  orders  to  act  against  illegal  content 
applicable to  all providers of intermediary services4, (ii) notice and  action  mechanisms that 
require providers of hosting services to act upon notices concerning illegal content in a timely 
manner5,  (iii)  a  trusted  flagger  mechanism6  requiring  online  platforms  (a  sub-category  of 
hosting services) to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers are given priority and are 
decided upon without undue delay, and (iv) transparency reporting obligations for providers of 
intermediary services, including additional obligations for online platforms, very large online 
platforms and very large online search engines7.  

This  Staff  Working  Document  aims  to  assess  the  progress  achieved  by  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  in  applying  the  measures  of  the  Recommendation.  It  is  based  on  several 
consultation activities, including the monitoring undertaken by the European Observatory on 
Infringements  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  hosted  by  the  European  Union  Intellectual 
Property Office (“EUIPO Observatory” or “Observatory”). 

1 See Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the 
harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p.10). 
2 See Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement 
of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p.45). 
3 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single 
Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). 
4 DSA, Articles 9 and 10. 
5 DSA, Article 16. 
6 DSA, Article 22. 
7 DSA, Articles 15, 24, and 42. 

2 

 
 
 
 
2.  MONITORING OF THE RECOMMENDATION 

A.  Monitoring of the effects of the Recommendation by the EUIPO Observatory 

The Commission services have worked closely with the EUIPO Observatory since the adoption 
of  the  Recommendation  to  monitor  the  actions  and  measures  taken  by  Member  States  and 
market players. 

To  guide  the  monitoring  and  data  collection,  the  Commission  published  key  performance 
indicators  (“KPIs”)  in  July  20238.  These  KPIs  relate  to  the  volume  of  unauthorised 
retransmission of sports and other live events in Member States (KPI 1), the prompt treatment 
of  notices  related  to  unauthorised  retransmission  of  live  sports  events  and  other  live  events 
(KPI  2),  the  use  of  dynamic  injunctions  for  live  events  (KPI  3),  and  the  availability, 
affordability, attractiveness and awareness raising of the legal offer (KPI 4). 

On this basis, the EUIPO Observatory has conducted a structured data collection in which all 
the interested stakeholders – rightholders, Member States’ authorities and intermediary service 
providers – were invited to submit relevant information on the implementation of the measures 
included in the Recommendation. Two data collection exercises, preceded by a test run, took 
place between June 2024 and July 2025, gathering data for 2024 and the first half of 20259. 
While  rightholders  and  Member  States  were  very  active  in  the  monitoring  exercise,  the 
participation of intermediaries was very limited10.  

B.  Dedicated network of national administrative authorities 

The  Commission  entrusted  the  Observatory  with  establishing  a  dedicated  network  of 
administrative authorities (“dedicated network”) to regularly exchange information on the legal 
systems and measures put in place at national level,  and on the challenges encountered and 
good practices established in addressing online piracy of live events.  

The dedicated network was launched on 10 October 2023 and has since met twice a year11. 
Additionally, the EUIPO organised in September 2024 a workshop dedicated to the technical 
aspects  of  implementing  online  blocks  of  content  and  the  structure  of  the  internet  for  the 
members  of  the  dedicated  network.  Another  technical  workshop  for  the  members  of  the 
network was organised in October 2025. 

The network allowed national authorities to exchange information on their legal frameworks 
applicable to (live event) piracy, including the use of dynamic injunctions, cooperation with 
online  intermediaries  and  the  challenges  and  new  trends  in  online  piracy.  In  this  context, 

8 See: Recommendation on online piracy of sports and other live events: the Commission services publish Key 
Performance Indicators | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
9 The first data collection exercise (test run) took place in April 2024 and aimed to gather data for the first six 
months of 2024. A second exercise was conducted in January 2025, covering data for the entire year 2024, while 
the third exercise took place in July 2025 regarding data from the first half of 2025. The EUIPO made a number 
of templates available to facilitate the submission of contributions by stakeholders. 
10 In 2024, 17 rightholders contributed to the exercise, while in the first half of 2025 there were 18 submissions. 
As regards Member States, 16 contributed in 2024 and 14 in the first half of 2025. By contrast, no submissions 
were received from intermediaries for 2024, and only one intermediary submitted data for the first half of 2025. 
11 The second meeting of the network took place on 10-11 June 2024, the third meeting on 2-3 December 2024, 
and a fourth meeting was held on 29 April 2025. 

3 

 
 
 
national authorities have also shared details of their efforts to promote legal offers, including 
by joining EUIPO’s Agorateka portal12.  

C.  The Commission’s call for evidence 

To complement the EUIPO’s data collection exercise and the dedicated network meetings, the 
Commission  published  a  call  for  evidence13  on  30  April  2025,  which  remained  open  for 
feedback until 4 June 2025. 

The call for evidence aimed at gathering the views and input  of any interested party on the 
effects  of  the  Recommendation,  particularly  on  how  effectively  Member  States  and 
stakeholders had implemented its measures. It also sought views on the potential impact of the 
DSA on live event piracy and on whether the Recommendation continues to meet its initial 
objectives. Additionally, it invited feedback on whether further EU-level measures are needed 
in the fight against piracy, including as regards other types of copyright-protected content. 

The Commission received 95 contributions to the call for evidence, which were submitted by 
several categories of stakeholders, including rightholders, intermediaries, citizens, and public 
authorities. Information on the stakeholder feedback can be found in the relevant sections of 
this document, as appropriate. 

3.  EVOLUTION OF PIRACY OF LIVE EVENTS  

In the context of the monitoring exercise, the Observatory collected data on the volume of live 
event piracy, covering web-based piracy  and IPTV piracy, in line with KPI 114. Web-based 
piracy refers to traffic to pirate websites offering unauthorised streaming of live events and was 
measured directly. IPTV piracy refers to the illegal streaming of TV, films, and live sports over 
internet  protocol  networks,  sometimes  mimicking  legitimate  IPTV  services  but  bypassing 
official subscription channels. Unlike web-based piracy, IPTV could not be measured directly, 
due to the difficulty to obtain quantitative information on such illegal activities. Instead, it was 
measured indirectly, based on the number of visits to pirate IPTV registration websites, which 
are used to sign up for these illicit IPTV services15. Due to this limitation in the data collection, 
it is difficult to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of online piracy of live 
events since the adoption of the Recommendation. 

The data collected by the Observatory shows that, after a peak in October 2023, web-based 
piracy slightly decreased throughout 202416. An increase can however be observed just before 
the beginning of 2025, with a peak in February/March 2025.  Overall, the data shows that visits 
to  illegal  websites  appear  to  be  cyclical,  with  two  annual  peaks  –  around  March/April  and 

12 Agorateka is a European online content portal, developed by the EUIPO through the European Observatory on 
Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights. It helps consumers identify legal offers for music, TV and films, 
games, books and sports events in participating European countries through a single portal. The portal links to 
existing national portals and promotes the creation of such portals in countries where there are currently none, 
with the help of a toolkit provided by the EUIPO. 
13 For more  information on the  call for evidence, please see Combating online piracy of sports and other live 
events – assessment of the May 2023 Commission Recommendation. 
14 The exercise involved collecting data on web-based piracy and IPTV-based piracy, which was mainly carried 
out by the external contractor MUSO. 
15 Data gathered by MUSO for the EUIPO in the latter’s KPI collection exercise up until July 2025. 
16 EUIPO report available at https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/observatory/enforcement/combating-piracy. 

4 

 
 
 
September/October – and lower levels in July. This could be linked to sports competitions and 
holiday seasons. 

The graph below, extracted from the Observatory  report, shows the evolution of web-based 
piracy for all live events across the 27 Member States. 

Figure 1 Evolution of web-based piracy of live events in the 27 Member States 

The Observatory report also notes that piracy overall is on the rise, with forms of piracy such 
as IPTV and app-based piracy increasing.   

The graph below shows the evolution of visits to websites for illegal IPTV registration in the 
Member States between 2023 and the first semester of 2025. The fact that such visits may have 
decreased after a peak  at the beginning of 2025 does not  necessarily mean that the level of 
piracy  through  IPTV  services  has  decreased.  It  could  rather  be  due  to  an  accumulation  of 
previously registered users and subscriptions to IPTV services by other means. 

5 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Visits to IPTV registration websites in all Member States between 2023-2025 

Other sources of information provide further insight into the recent trends in online piracy of 
live  events.  For  example,  in  France,  a  study  undertaken  by  the  Regulatory  Authority  for 
Audiovisual  and  Digital  Communication  (ARCOM)  in  2024  revealed  that  18%  of  French 
consumers opted for illicit live sports streaming services17. Another study shows that, while 
pirated  content  consumption  has  overall  decreased  in  France,  the  level  of  illegal  offerings 
remained  constant.  Moreover,  the  share  of  live  events  piracy  in  total  pirated  content 
consumption  rose  from  7%  in  2023  to  9%  in  202418.  In  Italy,  live  sports  event  piracy  has 
remained at the same level in 2023-2024, concerning 15% of the adult population, with 22% 
using illicit IPTV19. In the Nordic region (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark), more than 
1.5 million households subscribed to illicit IPTV in the spring of 2025, representing an increase 
of 200 000 households, or +16%, compared to spring 202420.  

Broadcasters reported increases in live event piracy in their feedback to the call for evidence. 
For example, in Poland, 9 747 infringements were detected (an average of 31 per match) in 
2023,  12 544  infringements  were  detected  (an  average  of  43  per  match)  in  2024  and  8 531 
infringements were detected between January and May (an average of 69 per match)21 in 2025. 

at 

17 La consommation illicite des programmes sportifs en 2024 - Résultats détaillés | Arcom. 
18 The studies were conducted by the Association de Lutte contre la Piraterie Audiovisuelle and Mediamétrie in 
France for 2024, with the contribution of the Centre National du Cinéma et de l’image animée for  2023, and are 
https://www.alpa.paris/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Consommation-illegale-sur-Internet-Bilan-
available 
2023-VDEF.pdf  and  https://www.alpa.paris/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Etude-Piratage-Internet-Avril-2024-
VD.pdf. 
19 Study conducted by FAPAV/Ipsos in 2024, available online at INDAGINE FAPAV/IPSOS 2024 | FAPAV. 
20  Study  conducted  by  Mediavision,  information  from  the  press  release,  available  at  News  |  Mediavision 
https://www.mediavision.se/en/2025/05/28/mediavision-over-1-5-million-nordic-households-have-access-to-
illegal-iptv/  
21 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Finally, information received from several Member States and stakeholders suggests that an 
increasing  number  of  piracy  cases  relate  to  content  delivered  via  specific  content  delivery 
networks (CDN) whose services are being misused for this purpose22.  

Beyond  live  events,  online  piracy  also  affects  other  time-sensitive  content,  such  as  first 
viewings  of  films  and  other  types  of  content.  Some  rightholders  consider  that  piracy  peaks 
when  high-quality  pirated  copies  of  films  become  available  online  during  their  theatrical 
releases, undermining the film’s box office performance and damaging stakeholders’ interests 
by quickly eroding the film’s value23.  

4.  ENSURING THE PROMPT TREATMENT OF NOTICES RELATED TO 

UNAUTHORISED RETRANSMISSIONS 

The  Recommendation  encourages  hosting  service  providers  to  promptly  treat  the  notices 
submitted by rightholders in live events, taking into consideration the specific nature of live 
transmissions  with 
the  harm  caused  during  unauthorised 
retransmissions.  

the  aim  of  minimising 

Under  Article  22  of  the  DSA,  online  platforms  (a  category  of  hosting  services)  are  already 
subject to specific obligations regarding the notices sent by trusted flaggers which should be 
treated  with  priority  and  without  undue  delay.  Building  on  the  DSA,  the  Recommendation 
encourages  providers  of  hosting  services  other  than  online  platforms  to  cooperate  with 
rightholders,  by  effectively  engaging  with  trusted  flaggers,  and  by  developing  and  using 
technical solutions to facilitate the processing of notices.  

Recital  22  of  the  Recommendation  clarifies  that  the  rules  on  notices  do  not  apply  to  other 
providers of intermediary services, such as CDNs or reverse proxies. These services are often 
the only ones that rightholders can identify when they detect unauthorised retransmissions of 
live events, because they are used to obfuscate the origin of the unauthorised retransmission. 
Some of these intermediaries allow notices to be sent and contribute to the identification of the 
IP  addresses  used  by  rogue  operators,  thereby  playing  an  important  role  in  combating  live 
events  piracy.  The  Recommendation  encourages  these  intermediaries  to  cooperate  with 
rightholders and providers of hosting services to facilitate the identification of the source of 
unauthorised retransmissions (paragraphs (7) and (25)). 

This section aims to assess the progress made with respect to these recommendations. 

A. Evidence gathered on the treatment of notices  

The information gathered for the purpose of this assessment has shown a limited improvement 
as regards the prompt treatment of notices by providers of hosting services. In particular, it 
emerges from the available data that online platforms have a high response rate to notices from 
rightholders, while other hosting services’ response rate appears to be rather low, and in some 
cases non-existent. The response rate is also very low or non-existent for other intermediaries 
who are able to identify and locate the source of unauthorised retransmissions of live events. 
Regarding those providers that take action and respond to notices, the data collected and the 
submissions of rightholders in the call for evidence highlight that a significant issue remains 

22 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence; see also EUIPO report. 
23 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 

7 

 
 
 
the time taken to respond. In most cases, the illegal retransmission is not removed during the 
live event24.  

The  data  gathered  in  the  EUIPO  monitoring  exercise  provides  granular  information  with 
respect  to  these  findings.  It  distinguishes  between  the  notices  sent  to  the  different  types  of 
intermediaries:  online  platforms,  dedicated  server  providers  (DSPs  –  referring  to  a  type  of 
hosting service provider that offers dedicated rather than shared server resources) and other 
intermediaries, some of which are not hosting services. The latter category included ‘other’ and 
‘other hosting providers’, terms used by rightholders, which means that no differentiation could 
be  made  in  the  data  collection  exercise.  This  category  therefore  included  not  only  ‘hosting 
service providers’ but also intermediaries such as CDNs, ‘proxy’ and ‘cloud’ services25. 

The graphs below show an increase in the total number of notices sent by rightholders between 
2024 and the first half of 2025. This was likely due to a change in the anti-piracy approach of 
one of the sports event organisers participating to the monitoring exercise, which affected the 
comparability  of  the  results26.  Moreover,  between  2024  and  the  first  half  of  2025,  the 
distribution of notices also changed, with a slight decrease in notices sent to DSPs and a larger 
decrease as regards online platforms. A sizeable increase in notices sent to other intermediaries 
can  be  noted.  Overall,  the  large  majority  of  notices  were  addressed  to  DSPs  and  other 
intermediaries (both hosting service providers and other).  

Figure 3: Number and percentage of notices sent by rightholders (January to December 2024) 

24 Feedback received from rightholders in the context of the call for evidence. 
25 See EUIPO report: The number of 4 372 026 noticed refers to notices sent to intermediaries such as ‘CDNs’, 
‘proxy’, ‘cloud’, as well as ‘hosting service providers’, which may have not been identified as such at the time of 
notification, or because the intermediary offers services that could fall into several categories (‘mere conduit’, 
‘caching’ or ‘hosting’).  
26 See EUIPO report. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Number and percentage of notices sent by rightholders (January to June 2025) 

According to the EUIPO data, DSPs and other hosting and non-hosting intermediaries suspend 
access to illegally streamed content during the live transmission in fewer than 10% of cases, 
compared  to  an  average  suspension  rate  of  96%  for  online  platforms  (during  the  live 
transmission)27.  

This information is corroborated by a report dated February 2025 analysing data submitted by 
several  rightholders  for  202428.  The  report  shows  that,  in  2024,  DSPs  received  52%  of  the 
notices sent by rightholders, followed by other hosts of streaming services (38% of the notices) 
and online platforms (10% of the notices)29. The  response to notices  also  varied by type of 
intermediary, with DSPs suspending the illegal retransmission in 11% of cases during the live 
transmission. Requests to online platforms lead to  a 98% suspension rate, while requests to 
other hosts of streaming services had a suspension rate of 8%. In addition, the report found that 
online platforms performed  better than  DSPs  at preventing illegal  content  from  reoccurring 
during the day (7.6% for online platforms while reoccurrence for DSPs amounts to 39.5%)30. 
Overall, the report notes that online platforms are the most responsive in implementing notice-
and-takedown mechanisms. The February 2025 report was updated by a report published in 
September  2025.  This  report  shows  an  increase  in  the  number  of  notices and  confirms  that 
platforms remain the most responsive to notices, with a 97% suspension rate during the event31.  

Some of these figures are also supported by information provided by respondents to the call 
for evidence. For example, one broadcaster reported that, in some instances, more than 3 000 
illicit streams, disseminated on hundreds of live streaming websites, can be detected for a single 
sport event. Out of the over one million notices sent to hosting providers by that broadcaster, 
only 1.4% of the streams notified were removed during the event. As regards online platforms, 

27 The data on suspension of illegal streaming is also influenced by the change in strategy of the respective sports 
organiser. For example, compared to 2024, the suspension rate of the illegal stream following a notice dropped 
from  19%  to  5%  in  2025,  but  would  have  dropped  considerably  less  if  the  data  from  the  sports  organiser  in 
question was not taken into account.  
28 Grant Thornton report, February 2025, contracted by the Live Content Coalition representing several holders 
of  rights  from  the  live  content  sector,  available  online  at  https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/globalassets/1.-
member-firms/united-kingdom/pdf/publication/2025/gt-combatting-online-piracy-february-2025.pdf. 
29 Ibid, Grant Thornton report. 
30 Ibid, Grant Thornton report, page 4.  
31 Updated Grant Thornton report, September 2025, available at https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/globalassets/1.-
member-firms/united-kingdom/pdf/search/gt-combatting-online-piracy-september-25-final.pdf. 

9 

 
 
 
 
the feedback refers to a removal response time varying from one platform to another32. Other 
rightholders reported that their notices were largely ignored by intermediaries or that they did 
not result in prompt removal33.  

Cooperation among market players is, as mentioned above, one of the measures underlined in 
the Recommendation. In this respect, the information collected  for this assessment suggests 
that the existence of cooperation agreements between rightholders and intermediaries is likely 
to have a positive impact on the response rate to notices, at least as regards online platforms. 
The  EUIPO  data  collection  exercise  shows  that  the  number  of  notices  submitted  under 
cooperation agreements led to suspensions in 87% of cases in the first half of 2025 and to 55% 
in 2024. The positive effect of cooperation agreements is corroborated by the February 2025 
report  mentioned  above,  which  notes  that  73%  of  notices  submitted  based  on  cooperation 
agreements  resulted  in  suspensions.  However,  disparities  remain  in  responses  from  online 
platforms and other intermediaries. More specifically, of the notices sent to DSPs, of which 
only 1% have cooperation agreements in place, 11% lead to suspension of the notified content, 
compared  to  an  84%  suspension  rate  by  online  platforms  (which  are  more  likely  to  have  a 
cooperation agreement)34.  

The  DSA  is  an  important  instrument  for  the  regulation  of  online  intermediaries’  conduct, 
including  through  its  notice  and  action  mechanisms.  While  available  data  is  insufficient  to 
show a direct correlation between the entry into force of the DSA and intermediaries’ removal 
of protected content following a notice, the high response rate to notices of online platforms, 
and their enhanced collaboration with rightholders, seem to indicate increased diligence on the 
part of at least some of the hosting service providers. Data registered on the DSA Transparency 
Database suggest there has been an increasing and significant number of IPR-related statement 
of  reasons  which  follow  content  moderation  decisions,  submitted  by  providers  of  online 
platforms since 202335. Also, while the process for designating trusted flaggers is ongoing in 
Member States, at the time of publication of the assessment, fifteen entities with expertise in 
intellectual property infringements, including several representing rightholders’ interests, were 
granted trusted flagger status36. It is expected that the DSA will normalise progressively the 
certification mechanisms for attributing the status of trusted flaggers. 

B. Remaining concerns of rightholders and intermediaries  

Overall,  while  some  improvement  can  be  noted  in  the  prompt  treatment  of  notices,  many 
rightholders  consider  that  there  is  no  effective  notice-and-takedown  mechanism  for  live 
content. Rightholders cite various reasons, including that (i) many infringers are located in and 
use  infrastructure  outside  the  European  Union37,  and  therefore  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 

32 Information received in the context of the call for evidence.  
33 Information received in the context of the call for evidence. 
34 Grant Thornton report. 
35 The DSA Transparency Database is available at https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu/.  
36 The trusted flagger list is available online at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/trusted-flaggers-
under-dsa;  
37  The  Commission  publishes  regularly  the  Counterfeit  and  Piracy  Watch  List,  which  contains  examples  of 
reported marketplaces or service providers whose operators or owners are allegedly resident outside the EU and 
which reportedly engage in, facilitate or benefit from counterfeiting and piracy, including of live sports events. 
The 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-
register/detail?ref=SWD(2025)132&lang=en 

available 

edition 

last 

at: 

is 

10 

 
 
 
Member States38; (ii) the slow handling of notices sent at weekends and outside business hours, 
when the most important sporting activities usually take place39; (iii) some hosting providers 
are not sufficiently incentivised to swiftly remove the infringing content40.  

Rightholders consider therefore that, to make the system more efficient, additional legislative 
measures are needed. While they consider the DSA to be a welcome addition to the toolbox to 
combat illegal content, it is in their view insufficient to tackle live event piracy.41 Some of the 
reasons relate to the specific scope of the DSA, the lack of precision regarding what constitutes 
‘expeditious’  action  to  prevent  access  to  unauthorised  retransmissions  of  live  events  and 
uncertainty  as  to  whether  they  would  be  granted  trusted  flagger  status  in  their  respective 
Member States.  In their view, the obligations outlined in the DSA should be extended to other 
types of intermediaries, such as CDNs, reverse proxies, and domain registrars. They also call 
for an extension of the ‘know your business customer’ (KYBC) obligations under the DSA to 
intermediaries  involved  in  online  piracy.  Some  also  deem  that  the  DSA  is  insufficiently 
enforced  by  the  relevant  competent  authorities,  with  some  Digital  Service  Coordinators 
(‘DSCs’) enforcing the rules more than others and call for further cooperation among the DSCs 
in this regard42.  

Conversely, online intermediaries, notably internet access providers, are concerned about the 
high  costs  of  and  investments  required  for  the  swift  removal  of  infringing  content43.  Other 
online intermediaries oppose extending the KYBC obligations and any potential obligations to 
remove content within a specified time limit, claiming this would lead to overblocking. They 
argue  that  the  full  implementation  of  the  DSA  should  be  given  priority  before  any  new 
measures are considered44.  

5.  INJUNCTIONS ADDRESSING UNAUTHORISED RETRANSMISSIONS 

Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive and Article 11 of IPRED provide for the possibility to 
obtain injunctions against infringers or intermediaries whose services are used by a third party 
to infringe copyright or related rights.  

Mirror websites offering infringing copyright-protected content can often appear very quickly 
once one site is blocked, which makes traditional blocking injunctions insufficient for tackling 
piracy,  in  particular  of  live  events45.  In  the  2017  guidance  on  certain  aspects  of  Directive 
2004/48/EC,  the  Commission  noted  that  under  the  condition  that  necessary  safeguards  are 
provided  for,  forward-looking,  catalogue-wide  and  dynamic  injunctions  can  be  an  effective 

38 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from various rightholders, including broadcasters and 
TV producers.  
39 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from rightholders, notably sports event organisers. 
40 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence by rightholders, including sports event organisers and 
broadcasters. 
41 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
42 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
43 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
44 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
45 See the EUIPO study on dynamic blocking injunctions in the European Union, EUIPO, March 2021; EUIPO 
Live event piracy discussion paper, Challenges and good practices from online intermediaries to prevent the use 
of their services for live event piracy, March 2023.  

11 

 
 
 
means  to  prevent  the  continuation  of  an  IPR  infringement46.  Dynamic  injunctions  refer  to 
injunctions that can be extended to enable the blocking of other services providing access to 
unauthorised retransmission even in those cases where they were not identified at the time of 
issuing the injunction, as long as they concern the same event(s). 

The  Recommendation  encourages  Member  States  to  adopt  such  dynamic  injunctions, 
accompanied  by  the  necessary  safeguards.  It  also  recommends  certain  specific  actions  by 
Member States as regards the remedies applicable to sports event organisers. 

The  sub-sections  below  provide  an  assessment  of  the  progress  made  by  Member  States  in 
implementing these recommendations. 

A.  Legal standing for sports event organisers 

Paragraph  (8)  of  the  Recommendation  encourages  Member  States  to  assess  whether  sports 
event  organisers  are  entitled  to  take  legal  action  to  prevent  or  prohibit  unauthorised 
retransmission of live sports events; where this is not the case, they are encouraged to grant 
them legal standing.  

Before  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  some  Member  States  already  provided  the 
possibility for sports event organisers to take legal action through different legal mechanisms, 
depending on the jurisdiction47.  

In France48 for instance, sports event organisers, broadcasters, and professional sports leagues 
are  entitled to  ask  in  court for measures  to  prevent  access  to  services that  retransmit sports 
competitions or events without authorisation. According to some stakeholders, this possibility 
has proven very effective to stop unauthorised retransmissions, including during the Paris 2024 
Olympic  Games49.  In  other  Member  States,  sports  event  organisers  do  not  have  an  express 
recognition  of  their  legal  standing,  but  they  are  nonetheless  allowed  to  obtain  injunctions 
through other mechanisms  at  national  level50.  In  many countries,  sports organisers  are only 
able  to  enforce  their  rights  through  related  rights  on  the  broadcasts  of  the  sports  events  or 
domiciliary rights51. 

A development since the adoption of the Recommendation is the introduction in Greece, in 
February  2025,  of  an  explicit  legal  standing  for  sports  event  organisers.  Greek  law52  now 
provides sports events organisers with the possibility to submit an application for termination 

46  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Institutions  on  ‘Guidance  on  certain  aspects  of  Directive 
2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property  rights’, 
COM(2017) 708 final. 
47 For example, in Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. See  the ‘Mapping 
report  on  national  remedies  against  online  piracy  of  sports  content’,  European  Audiovisual  Observatory, 
Strasbourg, 2021. In Portugal, under Law No. 82/2021 of 30 November, organisers and producers of sports events 
can seek a blocking injunction regarding unauthorised retransmission of a live sports event. 
48 Code du Sport – Section 3 on combating illegal retransmission of sporting events and  competitions, Article 
L333-10. 
49 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from rightholders, including sports event organisers. 
50 This is the case in Italy, Spain and Denmark. 
51 ‘Domiciliary rights’ or ‘house rights’ are  rights related to the stadium or venue that sports event organises often 
enjoy and ‘which in practice give them the possibility to take legal action for unauthorised access to their premises 
or for the breach of contractual obligations prohibiting the filming, recording, or broadcasting of the event’ (see 
Mapping report on national remedies against online piracy of sports content, European Audiovisual Observatory, 
Strasbourg, 2021). 
52 Article 66E paragraph 10A of Law 2121/1993, as amended by Law 5179/2025. 

12 

 
 
 
of  infringement  before  the  competent  authority53  stating  the  imminent  infringement  of  the 
rights granted to them.  

B.  Dynamic nature of the injunctions 

Under paragraphs (12) and (26) of the Recommendation, Member States are encouraged to use 
dynamic injunctions to enable the extension of the blocking of pirate services to new domains 
and mirror sites concerning the same live events.   

Before the adoption of the Recommendation, some Member States had already used dynamic 
injunctions through court orders specifically to address the evolving threat of online piracy54. 
Other Member States rely on hybrid  models consisting  in  a judicial  process combined  with 
intervention of an administrative authority. This system is implemented in countries such as 
Greece55, Italy56, Spain57, France58 or Lithuania59. In addition, some Member States may rely 
on  independent  bodies  to  block  infringing  sites.  For  instance,  Germany  relies  on  a  self-
regulatory body60 founded by internet  access providers and rightholders that is dedicated to 
implement DNS blocking of structurally copyright infringing websites.  

To  ensure  blocking  orders  remain  effective  for  live  events,  some  Member  States  have 
introduced  specific  measures  for  ‘live  blocking  injunctions’61.  These  measures  consist  in 
blocking the infringing site only for the duration of a live event or series of recurring live events 
(such as a football season or a tennis competition)62.  

Since the adoption of the Recommendation, some Member States have started to reassess their 
legal frameworks or have initiated policy discussions to strengthen enforcement measures, in 
particular for live events. Belgium introduced a hybrid system, in force since 1 June 2024, and 
created  for  this  purpose  a  new  administrative  authority63.  This  authority  issued  its  first 
decision64 in April 2025, whereby it requested different intermediaries to block over 130 URLs 

53 The Committee for the Notification of Copyright and Related Rights Infringement on the Internet (ΕDPPI). 
54 In countries such as Ireland, the Netherlands or Denmark, the courts have already granted dynamic injunctions 
to rightholders and sports holders of rights. See ‘Dynamic blocking injunctions in the European Union’, EUIPO, 
March 2021. 
55 In Greece, the Committee for the Notification of Copyright and Related Rights Infringement on the Internet 
(ΕDPPI). is entrusted with an administrative procedure that allows both traditional blocking and a live blocking 
for sport and cultural events. Following an amendment to the Law in 2025, the procedure extends to all audiovisual 
works and not only sports and cultural events.  
56 In Italy, the Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) has the power to issue blocking orders against 
infringing platforms, while courts continue to adjudicate complex or contested cases.  
57 In Spain, the Second Section of the Committee of Intellectual Property has also been entrusted with powers to 
issue dynamic injunctions. 
58 In France, ARCOM is the administrative authority in charge of updating the court orders.  
59  The  Radio  and  Television  Commission  of  Lithuania  is  the  national  regulator  responsible  for  radio  and 
audiovisual media services. It can issue blocking orders, including dynamic blocking orders.  
60 The Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet (CUII). 
61 In Portugal, the introduction of a live blocking procedure allows the Inspectorate General for Cultural Activities 
(IGAC) to order the blocking of infringing content. 
62 See EUIPO Live event piracy discussion paper: Challenges and good practices from online intermediaries to 
prevent the use of their services for live event piracy, EUIPO, March 2023. 
63 The Belgian Office for combatting online piracy and illegal gambling (BAPO) is an administrative authority 
created to monitor and implement judicial orders relating to clear and substantial infringement of copyright, a 
neighbouring right, or the rights of a database producer, committed online. It is also competent to update the list 
of all the blocked sites. See further information on Online piracy | FPS Economy. 
64 Decision by the Belgian Office for combatting online piracy and illegal gambling of April 1,2025 concerning 
order rr/25/00020. Decision-250401-BAPO-D-FR-001-EN.pdf 

13 

 
 
 
providing access to illegal sports content. In Latvia, amendments to the Copyright Law were 
made  in  December  2024  to  empower  an  administrative  authority  to  monitor  the  use  of 
copyright  protected  content  in  the  online  environment  by  restricting  access  to  copyright 
infringing  websites65.  In  France,  a  new  legislative  proposal  put  forward  earlier  this  year 
provides  for  temporary  blocking  orders66  updated  through  a  technical  tool  that  would  be 
supervised by ARCOM67.   

From the discussions in the meetings of the dedicated network, it emerges that discussions on 
the possible introduction of dynamic injunctions have been launched in a few other Member 
States  but  have  not  materialised  yet.  In  other  Member  States  however,  there  have  been  no 
developments in the field, prompting concerns from certain stakeholders.    

To  support  the  functioning  of  dynamic  injunctions,  some  Member  States,  such  as  Italy, 
Portugal,  Lithuania  and  Greece,  have  introduced  technical  tools  to  support  the  blocking  of 
infringing  sites. Using automated systems  to  update and monitor orders can be an effective 
means  of  tackling  infringing  live  content,  which  requires  quick  action.  These  tools  must 
however be accompanied by the necessary safeguards, as set out in the Recommendation. In 
Italy, dynamic injunctions can be issued by AGCOM via a technical tool called Piracy Shield 
after  rightholders  submit  a  request,  providing  proof  of  ownership  of  the  content  and  of  its 
infringement. Greece has also put in place a technical tool to monitor and follow-up on the 
blocking  of  live  events,  with  separate  procedures  for  dynamic  blocking  and  live  event 
blocking68.  Moreover,  in  2025,  Greece  adopted  legislation  to  extend  the  scope  of  the 
mechanism to cover all audiovisual works. 

The  EUIPO  data  collection  exercise  (see  table  1  below),  which  seven  Member  States 
contributed to in 2024 and six Member States in 202569, indicates that dynamic injunctions are 
widely used in countries where they are available, suggesting that they provide an effective 
remedy against piracy of live events.  

65 Amendment to the Copyright Act of 12 December 2024, published in Latvijas Vēstnesis, 251, 28.12.2024. See 
also IRIS Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory, IRIS 2025-2:1/19 
66 The proposed mechanism ensures a temporary blocking whereby IP blocking orders are updated in real time 
during the retransmission of a live sports event and are suspended once the sport event ends. This new mechanism 
would entail the introduction of an automated platform that would be monitored by ARCOM. 
67 Proposition de loi relative à l'organisation, à la gestion et au financement du sport professionnel, Texte n° 456 
(2024-2025) submitted to the French Senate on 18 March 2025. 
68 In the dynamic injunction procedure, mirror or clone sites can be blocked for preventing the circumvention of 
the main order. In live event blocking, which takes place before the event goes live, three main conditions need 
to be fulfilled (i) the blocking is only instituted for an event that is transmitted live; (ii) large-scale infringement 
is  demonstrated  or  very  likely  to  occur;  (iii)  there  must  be  an  immediate,  serious  and  imminent  danger  or  an 
irreparable damage to right holders, which also has a bearing on public interest. 
69 See EUIPO Report. 

14 

 
 
 
Table 1 Number of dynamic injunctions and resulting domain names/IP addresses blocked in Member States  

C.  New addressees of injunctions 

Recital 30 of the Recommendation acknowledges that, while injunctions are typically directed 
at  internet  access  providers,  as  they  can  block  access  to  services  offering  unauthorised 
retransmissions  of  live  events,  other  providers  of  intermediary  services  may  be  misused  to 
enable such retransmissions or to circumvent blocking measures. This may be the case of, for 
instance,  CDNs  and  reverse  proxies  which  can  be  used  to  obfuscate  the  origin  of  the 
unauthorised retransmissions, or alternative DNS resolvers and proxy services, such as Virtual 
Private Networks (VPNs) which may be used to  facilitate access to services that have been 
blocked.  

In view of this, paragraph (9) of the Recommendation encourages Member States to provide 
for injunctions also against those intermediaries, who, regardless of their lack of liability, offer 
services that are misused by third parties for illegal retransmissions of live (sports) events. In 
this regard, the DSA clarifies that, although some intermediary services may be exempted from 
liability  under  the  DSA,  it  does  not  prevent  them  from  being  addressees  of  injunctions,  in 
particular orders by courts or administrative authorities requiring the removal of illegal content 
or the disabling of access to it70. 

Information  gathered  for  the  purpose  of  this  assessment  shows  that  the  evolution  of  piracy 
trends and new intermediaries involved or misused for online piracy have led some national 
courts to expand the addressees of injunctions beyond internet access providers, by including 
search engines, CDNs, VPNs or illegal IPTV services.  

For  example,  French  courts  have  recently  targeted  intermediaries  other  than  internet  access 
providers.  Following  injunctions  in  2024  targeting  alternative  DNS  providers,  and  in  2025 
CDNs and proxy services, new rulings from the Paris Judicial Court have recently extended 
the scope of injunctions to VPNs, and illegal IPTV services71. In Spain, sports event organisers 
obtained  a  dynamic  blocking  injunction  against  ISPs  and  CDNs  in  the  La  Liga/Telefonica 
case72. In Italy, AGCOM’s injunctions are to be implemented also by intermediaries, such as 
VPNs  and  publicly  available  DNS  resolvers,  search  engine  operators  and  any  other  ISPs 

70 See recital 25 of the DSA. 
71 See Case 24/14722, Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 15 May 2025: Case 25/07645, Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 
10 July 2025; Case 25/05968, Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 18 July 2025.  
72 See LaLiga/Telefonica, Juzgado de Barcelona, 18 December 2024,SJM B 309/2024 - ECLI:ES:JMB:2024:309; 
Consejo General del Poder Judicial: Buscador de contenidos 

15 

YearNumber of dynamic injunctions issued in Member States participating to monitoring exerciseNumber of IP addresses/domains blocked (as a result of the dynamic injunction)20242387 (in 7 MS)41720First half of 2025579 (in 6 MS)35542 
 
 
 
 
involved in any way in providing access to illegal websites or services. Finally, the mentioned 
recent Belgian decision (see above) targeted also DNS resolvers73. 

As these are recent developments, there is not yet  sufficient data to assess the efficiency of 
dynamic injunctions addressed to those intermediaries. 

D.  Safeguards applicable to injunctions 

As  indicated  in  paragraph  (2)  and  recital  16,  the  Recommendation  does  not  apply  to  any 
legitimate use of content, such as the use of copyright-protected content under limitations and 
exceptions74 and the use of short extracts done in line with Article 15 of Directive 2010/13/EU. 
Paragraph  (15)  and  following  of  the  Recommendation  emphasise  the  importance  of 
implementing  robust  safeguards  to  protect  fundamental  rights  when  issuing  injunctions  to 
combat piracy  of live events.  These safeguards aim to balance the effective enforcement of 
intellectual property rights with the protection of users’ fundamental rights. 

Accordingly, the Recommendation advocates proportionate and targeted measures, in line with 
the  case-law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  (CJEU)75.  In  particular,  in  Case  C-314/12 
Telekabel,76 the CJEU stated that the measures adopted by ISPs must be ‘strictly targeted, in 
the sense that they must serve to bring an end to a third party’s infringement of copyright or of 
a related right but without thereby affecting internet users who are using the provider’s services 
in  order  to  lawfully  access  information’.  The  Recommendation  also  indicates  that  the 
application of such measures should not impose excessive obligations on intermediaries or lead 
to general monitoring.  

While  the  purpose  of  this  assessment  is  not  to  assess  the  compliance  of  the  systems  and 
procedures in place in Member States, the monitoring exercise has made it possible to identify 
specific measures taken to ensure that the injunctions issued are accompanied by the necessary 
safeguards  related  to  proportionality  and  respect  for  fundamental  rights.  For  instance, 
authorities may limit the duration of the blocking measure to the duration of the event or the 
infringement.  For  technical  tools  used  to  support  blocking  orders,  important  safeguards 
include: the requirement for the applicant to provide enough evidence on the infringement; the 
use of ‘whitelists’ of sites  that may not  be blocked; and the setting  of  specific deadlines to 
unblock  sites  once  the  initial  infringement  has  been  remedied  or  in  cases  of  erroneous 
blocking77. 

Overall,  having  the necessary safeguards  in  place  reduces the risks associated to  the use of 
certain  blocking  measures,  ensuring  that  such  measures  do  not  lead  to  unintended 

73 Decision by the Belgian Office for combatting online piracy and illegal gambling of 1 April 2025 concerning 
order RR/25/00020. Decision-250401-BAPO-D-FR-001-EN.pdf 
74 Under the Infosoc Directive, or Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of 17 April 2019 on 
copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. 
75 See paragraphs (18) and (19) of the Recommendation. 
76  Case  C-314/12  UPC  Telekabel  Wien  GmbH  v  Constantin  Film  Verleih  GmbH,  Wega 
Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH of 27 March 2014; ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, paragraph.56 
77 See EUIPO report. 

16 

 
 
 
consequences, such as restrictions to legal content, as mentioned by some respondents to the 
call for evidence78.  

As mentioned in recital 24 of the Recommendation, different technical measures may be used 
to implement blocking injunctions, for example through DNS or IP blocking. The risks of over-
blocking  may  be  higher  when  implementing  blocking  of  IP  addresses,  since  the  number  of 
websites connected to one specific IP address can vary. It is therefore important to ensure that 
the safeguards are adapted to the type of technical measures implemented.  More generally, the 
proportionality and effectiveness of the measures should be monitored at national level to avoid 
unintended consequences, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/212079. Additionally, any 
decision  taken  by  a  national  authority  may  be  subject  to  judicial  review  by  the  competent 
court80.   

In this context, some stakeholders, including a number of end-users, have complained about a 
few instances of over-blocking81, in particular in relation to the implementation of the Piracy 
Shield tool in Italy and the blocking injunction issued in the Laliga/Telefonica82 case in Spain. 
Those cases have raised discussions on the safeguards in place83.  

Overall, the available information suggests that the number of reported incidents related to the 
blocking of legitimate content appears to be very limited compared with the total number of 
dynamic injunctions issued following the adoption of the Recommendation.   

E.  Overall assessment 

National developments demonstrate increasing recognition among Member States of the need 
to  strengthen  enforcement  tools  to  tackle  online  piracy.  In  the  absence  of  other  remedies 
targeted  at  direct  infringers,  the  use  of  dynamic  injunctions  accompanied  by  the  necessary 
safeguards  has  proven  to  be  an  efficient  means  of  stopping  and  preventing  repeated 

78 Live event piracy discussion paper: Challenges and good practices from online intermediaries to prevent the 
use of their services for live event piracy, EUIPO, March 2023. 
79  Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down 
measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ 
rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming 
on public mobile communications networks within the Union (‘the Open Internet Regulation’). The Open Internet 
Regulation guarantees that end-users shall have the right to access and distribute information and content, use and 
provide applications and services, and use terminal equipment of their choice, irrespective of the end-user’s or 
provider’s location or the location, origin or destination of the information, content, application or service, via 
their internet access service. Providers of internet access services shall treat all traffic equally, when providing 
internet  access  services,  without  discrimination,  restriction  or  interference,  and  irrespective  of  the  sender  and 
receiver,  the  content  accessed  or  distributed,  the  applications  or  services  used  or  provided,  or  the  terminal 
equipment  used.  National  regulatory  authorities  shall  closely  monitor  and  ensure  compliance  with  these 
requirements and shall promote the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels 
of quality that reflect advances in technology. 
80 See also recital 28 of the Recommendation. 
81 In the context of the monitoring exercise, two national authorities reported instances of wrongful blocking or 
overblocking. see EUIPO report. 
82  See  the  LaLiga/Telefonica  case,  Juzgado  de  Barcelona,  18  December  2024,  SJM  B  309/2024  - 
ECLI:ES:JMB:2024:309; Consejo General del Poder Judicial: Buscador de contenidos 
83 See the latest AGCOM draft resolution amending the regulation on the protection of copyright in electronic 
communications networks, which was notified to the Commission under the Technical Regulations Information 
System (TRIS) procedure (Notification 2025/0148/IT).  

17 

 
 
 
infringements84, as shown by the data collected through the EUIPO’s monitoring exercise and 
the feedback collected through the call for evidence.  

As indicated above, the implementation of dynamic injunctions, in particular addressing live 
events, is very diverse across the EU. Some Member States have put in place comprehensive 
measures  to  tackle  unauthorised  retransmissions  of  live  events,  while  other  countries  have 
taken limited or have not taken any measures in this respect. Member States where dynamic 
injunctions are in place consider them necessary to tackle online piracy in a rapidly developing 
environment. However, a key aspect is ensuring the rapid implementation of such injunctions 
while also guaranteeing the correct application of safeguards.  

Feedback from rightholders in response to the call for evidence and discussions with Member 
States during dedicated network meetings suggest that Member States with hybrid systems — 
combining  judicial  and  administrative  mechanisms  —  are  effective  in  addressing  repeated 
infringements.  Rightholders  pointed  out  that  even  faster  systems  are  needed,  supported  by 
automated  tools,  and  that  injunctions  should  be  recognised  across  borders  to  increase  their 
effectiveness.  They  also  consider  that  injunctions  should  be  accompanied  by  additional 
measures to be more effective, such as enhanced cooperation with intermediaries. 

Due  to  the  differences  in  the  regulatory  frameworks  across  Member  States,  several 
stakeholders,  including  national  authorities  and  rightholders,  are  calling  for  legislation  to 
harmonise the application and enforcement of dynamic injunctions at EU level.  They argue 
that  the  lack  of  uniform  enforcement  system  undermines  the  overall  efficacy  of  the  current 
rules.  

On the other hand,  some  intermediaries that  responded to  the call for  evidence85 argue  that 
blocking  injunctions  should  not  be  used  as  the  primary  tool  against  piracy,  as  they  may  be 
easily circumvented technically and may not be accurate enough. They consider that the focus 
should be on alternative approaches such as increased cooperation among the relevant market 
players, law enforcers and national authorities, and on informing users about legal alternatives. 
Other intermediaries86 consider that blocking measures must always be supported by a judicial 
order  and  monitored  by  the  courts  or  by  competent  administrative  authorities,  and  that  the 
approach should be based on solid safeguards to protect legitimate content.  

Citizens that responded to the call for evidence advocate for evidence-based and proportionate 
responses  that  prioritise  accessibility,  fair  and  affordable  pricing  of  legal  offers.  They  also 
highlight the need to balance the protection of intellectual property rights with the protection 
of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of information, when adopting technical measures 
to block access to illegal content. 

84 See EUIPO Study on dynamic blocking injunctions in the European Union, EUIPO, March 2021; EUIPO Live 
event piracy discussion paper, Challenges and good practices from online intermediaries to prevent the use of 
their services for live event piracy, March 2023.  
85 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
86 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from internet access providers. 

18 

 
 
 
6.  COOPERATION  

A.  Cooperation between holders of rights and providers of intermediary services 

Paragraphs (7) and (25) of the Recommendation encourage cooperation between rightholders 
and  providers  of  intermediary  services  to  facilitate  the  identification  of  the  source  of  the 
unauthorised  retransmissions  and  to  take  specific  measures  against  repeated  misuse  of 
intermediary services87. 

Several  cooperation  agreements  exist  between  rightholders  and  internet  access  providers, 
whether  concluded between market  players  (for  example in  Sweden)88, or supported by the 
intervention of a public authority (for example in Denmark89, France90 and Spain91). Bilateral 
cooperation agreements have also been concluded between individual rightholders and several 
types of intermediaries. For instance, in the responses to the call for evidence, one rightholder 
reported having concluded up to 12 agreements with hosting services, DSPs and CDNs aimed 
at ensuring the timely removal of or disabling access to illegal content92. 

During  the  data  collection  exercises  conducted  by  the  EUIPO,  under  KPI  2.2,  participating 
rightholders reported that, in 2024, they had entered into 49 voluntary cooperation agreements 
with intermediaries: 25 with DSPs, 17 with online platforms and 7 with other intermediaries (2 
cloud services provider, 2 other hosting providers, 3 CDN and proxy services providers). The 
number of cooperation agreements in place reported by rightholders in 2025 rose to 62 (42 with 
DSPs,  18  with  online  platforms  and  2  with  a  service  seeking  to  identify  the  source  of 
infringements). Additional cooperation agreements with payment services or advertisers were 
also mentioned under KPI 2.3.  

Data  submitted  during  the  monitoring  exercise  moreover  show  that  the  majority  of  notices 
which  resulted  in  the  suspension  of  access  to  the  illegal  retransmission  were  issued  in  the 

87 Recital 22 clarifies that providers of intermediary services upstream in the internet infrastructure such as CDNs 
or reverse proxies, which can often be the only services identified by rightholders when they detect unauthorised 
retransmission, should be encouraged to share information on the identification of the sources of the unauthorised 
retransmissions, including, when appropriate, the origin IP address of the servers. Furthermore, recital 30 refers 
to possible voluntary measures that could be taken by alternative DNS resolvers and proxy services such as VPNs 
to prevent their services from being misused (for example to facilitate access to services that have been blocked). 
88  A  voluntary  agreement  has  been  in  place  since  2022  between  rightholders  and  Swedish  internet  service 
providers, to streamline the handling and implementation of  decisions on blocking injunctions. The text of this 
agreement can be consulted here: Microsoft Word - Branschöverenskommelse.docx .  
89 In Denmark, the ‘Share With Care (SWC) initiative’, was born in 2022 out of a collaboration between Danish 
Rights Alliance, the Danish Ministry of Culture and the Danish Telecom Industry Association. The parties have 
established a Code of Conduct for the handling of decisions regarding the blocking of access to infringing services 
See: Share With Care | RettighedsAlliancen. 
90 In France, a voluntary agreement has been signed in 2023 with the support of ARCOM between the Fédération 
Française  des  Télécoms  (FFTélécoms),  and  the  Sports  rightholder  group  Association  pour  la  protection  des 
programmes sportifs (APPS). For more details see: https://www.arcom.fr/presse/signature-de-laccord-entre-les-
fournisseurs-dacces-internet-et-les-titulaires-de-droits-sportifs-visant-proteger-les-retransmissions-sportives. 
91 In Spain, in 2021 the “Protocolo para el refuerzo de la protección de los derechos de propiedad intelectual” was 
signed between Spanish internet access providers and rightholders, with the agreement of the Spanish Ministry of 
Culture and Sport. For reference see: La Moncloa. 08/04/2021. Rodríguez Uribes: "Una correcta protección de 
los  derechos  de  los  creadores  es  una  garantía  fundamental  para  un  ecosistema  cultural  rico  e  innovador" 
[Prensa/Actualidad/Cultura] 
92 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 

19 

 
 
 
context of cooperation agreements93. Some intermediaries, notably online platforms, have put 
in place voluntary cross-industry cooperations with rightholders and developed specific tools 
and  measures  which  can  be  deployed  to  combat  IP  infringement  on  their  services94.  In 
particular,  some  online  platforms,  in  the  responses  to  the  call  for  evidence,  stated  that  the 
measures  taken  to  fight  live  event  piracy  included  preventing  newly  created  accounts  from 
engaging  in  live  streaming95,  and,  in  certain  specific  cases,  banning  the  accounts  of  repeat 
infringers96.  Overall,  online  platforms  consider  that  the  existing  voluntary  cooperation  with 
rightholders provides an effective path to continue addressing piracy of live events.  

However,  some  rightholders  who  responded  to  the  call  for  evidence  indicated  that  most 
cooperation agreements still rely on non-automated processing of notices, which limits their 
effectiveness  in  the  case  of  live  events.  Several  rightholders  also  highlighted  that  certain 
intermediaries  who  are  not  subject  to  notice  and  action  obligations  under  the  DSA  are  still 
reluctant to engage in voluntary cooperation.  

The importance of cooperation was also acknowledged by other intermediaries, particularly by 
ISPs,  whose  submissions  to  the  call  for  evidence  underlined  how  collaborative  approaches 
between rightholders and intermediaries are more effective, less costly and less time consuming 
than court orders. Some respondents, including rightholders and intermediaries, consider that 
cooperation agreements can be useful when they can count on the mediating role of a national 
competent authority, as this promotes constructive dialogue97.  

B.  Cooperation between public authorities 

Given the nature of unauthorised retransmissions of live events, which often take place cross-
border, more effective cooperation among competent authorities in the different Member States 
is an important step in tackling live event piracy more efficiently.  

Paragraph (36) of the Recommendation encourages Member States to actively engage in the 
exchange of information about the services access to which has been blocked in their territory 
on the basis of an injunction.  Moreover, under  Article 9(4) of the DSA,  when  a judicial or 
administrative authority of a Member State issues an order to act against illegal content that 
meets the established requirements, the Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) of that Member 
State must, upon receiving the order and without undue delay, transmit a copy of it to all other 
DSCs through the system set up in accordance with Article 85 of the DSA. According to the 
information collected through the dedicated network, this information sharing system, which 
is directly relevant for live event piracy, is not fully operational yet. This is likely due to the 
delay in the full uptake of the system for information exchange (AGORA) on orders pursuant 
to Articles 9 and 10 of the DSA, the use of which is likely to increase in the short to medium-
term. 

The vast majority of Member States’ authorities have shown a strong interest in exchanging 
information within the dedicated network. The network has proven to be a crucial initiative, 

93  For  2024,  the  data  collected  during  the  monitoring  shows  that,  for  the  notices  sent  through  cooperation 
agreements, 55% resulted in a suspension. For the first half of 2025, 87% of the  notices sent via  cooperation 
agreements led to suspensions. 
94 EUIPO report. 
95 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
96 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
97 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 

20 

 
 
 
enabling participating authorities to exchange valuable information on their best practices for 
curbing  live  event  piracy,  and  share  their  expertise  and  developed  resources  with  other 
members of the network98. Certain Member States, subsequently to the meetings held in the 
context of the network, organised bilateral meetings to exchange further information on  the 
respective systems, good practices and the challenges they have faced in the course of their 
mandates.  In  addition,  some  public  authorities  have  engaged  in  public-private  sector 
cooperation. ARCOM, for example, has cooperated with the International Olympic Committee 
(IOC).  In its efforts to prevent illegal retransmissions of Olympic sporting events, the IOC put 
in  place  a  comprehensive  programme  for  the  2024  Paris  Olympic  Games,  which  included 
multiple  cooperation  agreements,  including  with  intermediary  services  and  social  media 
platforms, specifically to address live event piracy99. 

At the dedicated network meetings, some Member States who are contributing to the WIPO 
Alert100  platform,  an  initiative  launched  and  hosted  by  the  World  Intellectual  Property 
Organisation (WIPO), also raised the possibility of creating a similar initiative at  EU level. 
This would allow in their view  for the quick circulation  of information  concerning blocked 
domain  names  and  other  internet  locations,  such  as  IP  addresses,  to  which  access  is  being 
restricted in their jurisdictions. This was echoed by calls from a majority of Member States to 
strengthen  their  cooperation  beyond  the  network  meetings.  In  their  reply  to  the  call  for 
evidence, certain public authorities called for measures which would allow national authorities 
to  share  evidence  of  copyright  infringements.  Some  rightholders  also  supported  the  idea  of 
wide-ranging and stronger enforcement across borders, including the recognition of judicial 
orders issued under the jurisdiction of a different Member State, to strengthen the response to 
online  piracy  and  reduce  the  fragmentation  that  limits  the  effectiveness  of  enforcement 
measures101. 

7.  RAISING  AWARENESS  AND  ENHANCING  THE  AVAILABILITY  OF 

COMMERCIAL OFFERS 

Paragraph (34) of the Recommendation underlines the importance of raising users’ awareness 
of the availability of legal offers. It also encourages holders of rights in transmissions of live 
events to increase the availability, affordability, and attractiveness of their commercial offers 
to end users across the EU. 

98 For example, the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (LRTK), curates a list of blocked domain names 
within their jurisdiction by the competent Lithuanian court and makes it available to the public. The list can be 
freely consulted at this address: Copyright Infringement Websites | Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission 
99 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
100 Launched in 2019, WIPO ALERT is a secure online platform on which national authorities that have registered 
and  signed  up  for  this  scheme  can  upload  and  update  lists  of  copyright-infringing  web  sites.  Advertisers, 
advertising agencies and intermediaries can register as authorised users and download these lists. The platform is 
not publicly available but requires registration and authentication. The service enables a global view of infringing 
sites, including sites in languages which might otherwise be overlooked. The platform strengthens the practical 
basis for the advertising industry self-regulation. Currently, five EU Member States contribute to the WIPO Alert 
platform. 
101 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 

21 

 
 
 
A.  Availability, affordability and attractiveness of commercial offers 

The submissions to the Observatory data collection exercise focused solely on the availability, 
affordability and attractiveness of sports events transmissions and hence no data are available 
on other live events102. 

According to the data received, sports event organisers typically grant between 1 and 5 licences 
per  event  to  broadcasters,  within  a  reported  territory,  and  there  are  usually  between  1  to  2 
distribution channels per event, with limited exceptions103. These distribution channels include 
usually Pay TV or subscription-based streaming services, with free-to-air offers also available 
on certain occasions. Licences to public broadcasters were reported in one case. 

Feedback from the call for evidence shows that several rightholders and sports event organisers 
have made efforts to make their offers more accessible, for example by introducing ‘freemium’ 
offers (where content is made available without a paid subscription) and Free Ad Supported 
TV  (FAST  channels)104.  They  have  also  set  up  a  website  which  allows  users  to  obtain 
information on where a specific sporting competition is available105.  

However, the data submitted by sports event organisers and rightholders to the EUIPO does 
not allow to fully assess the progress made in terms of the availability of sports events or the 
affordability  and  attractiveness  of  commercial  offers.  Consumers  responding  to  the  call  for 
evidence  consider  that  this  remains  an  area  of  concern,  arguing  that  the  availability  of 
affordable legal offers remains low and legal offers are fragmented106. In a survey conducted 
in France in 2023, 19% of respondents admitted using illicit sources to access live sports, citing 
cost and fragmentation of commercial offers (57%) as the main  reasons. Among those who 
responded that they are watching live events via unauthorised retransmissions, 65% reported 
already  having  a  subscription  to  at  least  one  legal  offer  for  sport  content107.  Some  national 
authorities responding to the Observatory monitoring exercise highlighted pricing of available 
legal offers, together with fragmentation and territorial availability, as possible obstacles faced 
by users seeking  to access legal  offers of live content, which often requires users to  obtain 
multiple paid subscriptions.  

Rightholders and sports event organisers argue that, despite the efforts made to increase the 
availability of legal offers, competition with unauthorised retransmissions, which are usually 
free  to  consume,  cannot  be  considered  to  take  place  on  fair  terms.  They  point  out  that 
unauthorised retransmissions also occur when a live event is available on free-to-air channels, 
for  example,  during  the  Olympic  Games108.  Other  contributions  have  highlighted  that  the 
visibility  of  legal  access  to  live  content  needs  to  be  expanded  further,  for  example  through 

102  Five  Broadcasters  provided  data  for  volleyball,  boxing,  handball,  basketball,  motorsports,  tennis,  hockey, 
rugby,  futsal  and  football  for  their  respective  territories  of  operation.  The  broadcasted  events  were  national, 
European, regional and world championships. 
103 EUIPO report. Overall, within the monitoring, sports organisers reported on 701 broadcasted competitions. 
The majority were licensed to one or two broadcasters (in total 65% and 30% respectively of all competitions). 
104 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
105  For  more  information,  please  see  the  website  made  available  here by  the  Sports  Rights  Owners  Coalition: 
Sports Rights Owner Coalition – The Voice of Sporting events  
106 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence.  
107 ARCOM, Baromètre de la consommation de programmes sportifs, published in May 2024. 
108 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence.  

22 

 
 
 
cooperation  between  rightholders  and  ISPs,  including  via  verified  domain  labelling  or 
promotion on platforms that serve the end users directly109. 

B.  Awareness raising activities by Member States 

Several  national  authorities  are  actively  engaged  in  initiatives  that  contribute  to  raising 
awareness of legal offers and the negative consequences of online piracy.  

From information gathered via the EUIPO data collection exercise and the dedicated network 
meetings, it appears that educational activities have been conducted in several Member States. 
For example, Greece has launched a project named ‘Copyright school’110, run in cooperation 
with the Ministry of Education, aimed at providing an educational and training platform for 
students, teachers and parents and explaining the negative effects of piracy. Specific modules 
have been introduced in school curricula in Romania and Slovenia to raise pupils’ awareness 
of piracy. Rightholders have called for the introduction of similar campaigns into the school 
curricula of other Member States111. 

Regarding awareness raising activities targeted to the general public, in 2023 Spain launched 
a campaign titled ‘Me gusta, lo pago’ (‘I like it, I pay for it’)112, to raise awareness of the need 
to  respect  intellectual  property  rights  and  promote  access  to  legal  and  safe  content.  Similar 
efforts to curb public consumption of pirated material, targeted specifically at sports events, 
were made in France by rightholders, with the support of ARCOM, in 2024113. 

Several Member States reported using dedicated portals to provide information on available 
legal offers. Additionally, some national authorities compile ‘blacklists’ of websites that make 
available copyright infringing content and ‘whitelists’ of services which are instead referenced 
as  providing  access  to  protected  content  legally114.  In  other  Member  States  users  trying  to 
access blocked websites are informed about the reasons for the blocking and re-directed to legal 
offers options115. These initiatives play an essential role in raising awareness about the respect 
of copyright and related rights, and about the risks and consequences connected with accessing 
copyright protected content illegally116. This combination of website-blocking combined with 
awareness raising is considered as a successful model117. 

The Recommendation refers to Agorateka, the already cited European online content portal, 
developed  by  the  EUIPO  Observatory,  which  helps  consumers  identify  legal  offers  in 
participating European countries. Following the adoption of the Recommendation and the work 

109 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from a coalition of intermediaries. 
110 Home - copyrightschool 
111 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence. 
112 El Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte lanza la campaña de lucha contra la piratería ‘Me gusta, lo pago’ | Ministerio 
de Cultura 
113  In  June  2024,  the  Audiovisual  Anti-Piracy  Alliance  launched  the  "Protège  ton  sport"  raising  awareness 
campaign, produced with the support of ARCOM. See also: Fight agains sports piracy | Arcom 
114 See EUIPO report. An example of whitelist can be consulted at: https://www.arcom.fr/sites-plateformes 
115 See EUIPO report.  
116 There are several risks associated with  using and accessing illegal services,  including exposure of  users to 
malware, as well as data theft. Associations such as the Danish Right Alliance have also launched initiatives aimed 
at raising the awareness of users to this type of risks connected with online piracy. See, for example, the ‘Os der 
2025: 
(‘Us 
elsker 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbpmCivb2g8. 
117 See Study on the effectiveness and the legal and technical means of  implementing website-blocking orders, 
December 2024, available at: wipo_ace_17_13.pdf 

campaign 

Movies’) 

launched 

Love 

film’ 

Who 

in 

23 

 
 
 
that took place during the dedicated network meetings, additional portals on legal offers have 
been  connected  to  Agorateka,  with  Bulgaria  joining  Agorateka  in  2024,  and  Slovenia  and 
Croatia in 2025, bringing the total of participating Member States to 25. 

Finally, several stakeholders responding to the call for evidence consider that the adoption of 
the Recommendation has helped put  in the spotlight the importance of the fight against the 
unauthorised retransmission of sports and other live events118.  

8.  CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the assessment shows that the Recommendation has had positive effects by prompting 
action from certain stakeholders and Member States. Nonetheless, given its non-binding nature, 
these effects have been limited and have not allowed to significantly curb the volume of online 
piracy of live events.   

There has been limited improvement in the prompt treatment of notices relating to live events. 
While the processing of notices by online platforms seems to be effective, also due to the entry 
into  force  of  the  DSA,  a  significant  number  of  notices  relating  to  unauthorised  live 
retransmissions have been sent to other hosting service providers (DSPs) that lag far behind 
online platforms when it comes to suspending illegal retransmissions. In addition, an increasing 
number of notices are being  addressed to other intermediaries, including CDNs and reverse 
proxies,  which  are  not  subject  to  the  DSA  rules  on  notices.  In  this  context,  the  assessment 
underlines that cooperation agreements have led to a better and quicker response by the relevant 
intermediaries.  

On  the  implementation  and  use  of  dynamic  injunctions  by  Member  States,  the  assessment 
reveals  a  mixed  picture.  Some  Member  States  can  count  on  advanced  systems  for  the 
implementation of dynamic injunctions, which have proven to be an effective tool to stop and 
prevent repeated infringements. Other Member States lack any such mechanisms. Yet, since 
the adoption of the Recommendation, national debates on introducing and applying dynamic 
injunctions  have  intensified,  with  some  Member  States  taking  effective  measures  while 
providing safeguards to avoid overblocking.  

Several  voluntary  cooperation  agreements  have  been  concluded  between  rightholders  and 
intermediaries since the adoption of the Recommendation. However, the reluctance of certain 
intermediaries to cooperate with rightholders in addressing online piracy remains an area of 
concern. As to the cooperation among public authorities, the  establishment of the dedicated 
network is seen as a positive development. National authorities are willing to continue such 
cooperation and explore opportunities for a more structured exchange of information, including 
on the services that have been blocked at national level.  

Awareness-raising activities undertaken by several Member States have contributed to better 
informing users on the effects of piracy and directing them to legal offers. Despite the efforts 
reported  by  rightholders  to  make  commercial  offers  more  accessible  through  different 
channels, consumers and other stakeholders consider that legal offers should be expanded and 
made more affordable.  

118 Feedback received in the context of the call for evidence from rightholders.  

24 

 
 
 
The full application of the DSA as of February 2024 has provided a robust legal framework 
supporting the fight against illegal content online, in particular by harmonising the rules on 
notices. Its recent implementation, however, does not allow to conclude on its impact on piracy 
of  live  events.  For  example,  the  full  assessment  of  the  trusted  flaggers  mechanism  will  be 
possible  once  trusted  flaggers  begin  to  submit  annual  reports  on  the  notices  submitted, 
including on the action taken by the platforms. The DSA can further contribute to the fight 
against live event piracy, and copyright infringements more broadly, in particular through the 
Working  Group  set  up  by  the  European  Board  for  Digital  Services  (‘the  DSA  Board’)  and 
dedicated, among other matters, to intellectual property rights issues. Furthermore, the DSA 
Board examines how the enforcement of the DSA rules across the EU can contribute effectively 
to  combating  online  IP  infringements,  including  online  piracy,  and  has  held  dedicated 
discussions to that end119.   

This assessment demonstrates that the Recommendation has contributed to advancing efforts 
to combat piracy of live events. It is therefore essential that all relevant stakeholders continue 
to pursue the actions encouraged in the Recommendation. In addition, the work undertaken by 
the  EUIPO  Observatory  since  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  in  particular  the 
monitoring  of  the  Recommendation  and  the  cooperation  with  Member  States  through  the 
dedicated network, has been instrumental in tracking progress in the fight against live event 
piracy at both national and EU level. This framework remains vital and should be maintained. 

While this assessment shows that some progress has been achieved in the fight against live 
event piracy, there is at the same time an overall stagnant level of web-based piracy alongside 
piracy through illegal IPTV. In light of the above, the Commission will examine the areas for 
possible further action to better address the piracy of live events at EU level. It will consider 
further the contribution of different online intermediaries to the fight against online piracy in 
the context of the discussions in the DSA Board and its working groups. The Commission will 
also explore whether new measures are needed to ensure a wider and more consistent use of 
dynamic  injunctions  across  Member  States  and a  more  systematic  cross-border  cooperation 
among national authorities.  

119 European Board for Digital Services | Shaping Europe’s digital future. 

25