Nostalgia: Then & Now · Walter Finch · 12 July 2026

Google comes out against EU site blocking — and here's why

Google comes out against EU site blocking — and here's why

Google comes out against broad site blocking in the EU, warning that DNS, IP, and VPN blocks are ineffective, disproportionate, and harmful to lawful services. The pushback follows a French court order requiring upstream providers like Google and Cloudflare to block pirate streaming sites — a fight now echoing in U.S. Congress. The company is pushing back against the latest legislative attempts to control the internet, reopening a familiar debate about who should police piracy and who pays the price when enforcement goes wide.

Key Takeaways

Why does Google come out against site blocking now?

For years, copyright battles focused on shuttering individual pirate domains. Rights holders chased offshore operators through slow court processes while pirates spun up backup servers and mirror sites that went online the moment main platforms were blocked.

Today's fight looks different. Regulators and courts increasingly target upstream internet intermediaries — the DNS resolvers, cloud networks, and infrastructure providers that keep the web running. Google is one of them. A landmark French ruling ordered companies like Google and Cloudflare to actively block access to prominent pirating and illegal streaming sites on behalf of sports rights holders.

Google is pushing back against that judgment, and its reasoning is surprisingly direct. In a submission to the EU, the company argued that blocking DNS resolvers, IP addresses, and VPNs is ineffective because it does not remove content and is easily circumvented through alternative DNS resolvers. The filing, reported by Mashable, frames broad blocking as disproportionate, prone to catching lawful services, and capable of blocking entire domains.

The timing matters. As lawmakers revisit how the EU polices copyright online, one of the world's largest infrastructure operators is drawing a line. For a deeper look at how digital culture keeps circling the same fights with new tools, browse our Nostalgia: Then & Now coverage.

What did the French court order Google to do?

The French decision places direct responsibility on upstream internet providers rather than on illegal streaming services themselves. Pirate platforms are notoriously difficult to bring to justice in local courts, especially when operators exploit loopholes in international law or deploy backup domains that go online the moment main sites are blocked.

Instead of chasing those operators site by site, the court pushed enforcement onto intermediaries closer to everyday users. Google and Cloudflare were ordered to block access to prominent pirating and illegal streaming platforms at the request of sports rights holders. The case is documented in EUIPO case law records.

To block sites that operate across multiple domains, servers, and web addresses, Google would need a combination of DNS filtering plus IP and VPN blocking. Mashable compared the approach to catching a minnow with a giant trawling net: you might scoop up the target, but you also risk harming dolphins, whales, and every other species in the sea.

Savvy internet pirates, meanwhile, have multiple ways to circumvent these actions. The minnows may still escape while ordinary internet users get caught in the filtering.

Which legitimate sites have been caught in blocking nets?

Google's submission does not stay theoretical. The company cited real-world harms from blanket bans, including inadvertently blocking Google Drive access. Restrictions have also affected websites such as Amnesty International, the ACLU, UNICEF, UNHCR, the Australian Senate, and Stanford Law Review.

That list underscores a recurring problem in site-blocking regimes: shared infrastructure. Blocking IP addresses neither removes infringing content nor achieves proportionate outcomes when many lawful services use the same address. Entire domains can disappear from view even when only a sliver of content is allegedly infringing.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has echoed Google's criticisms. The digital rights group argues that EU attempts to legislate the internet keep European users locked up behind big tech's gates. The EFF also took a strong stand against automated filtering mandates argued for in Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive — another flashpoint from the last decade that feels newly urgent.

The pattern is familiar even if the tools are new. Then, the fight centered on individual pirate sites and backup domains. Now, courts are ordering infrastructure providers to filter traffic higher up the chain — with collateral damage that reaches far beyond the original target.

Is the United States heading toward the same rules?

Google's European filing lands as similar ideas gain momentum in Washington. A House IP Subcommittee met on June 30 to discuss exactly the kind of upstream content bans enforced by the EU. California Representative Darrell Issa has already pledged to introduce exactly such a bill.

The parallel is hard to miss. European courts are already ordering DNS-level enforcement against intermediaries. American lawmakers are now holding hearings on comparable measures. That makes Google's EU comments especially relevant on both sides of the Atlantic.

Not coincidentally, these legislative efforts are ramping up as illegal streaming and downloading experience a resurgence in popularity — what one publication called a piracy renaissance. Mashable links that revival to streaming platforms raising prices, introducing advertising, and fragmenting content across more paid services than ever.

Then, the pressure point was the pirate site itself. Now, lawmakers and rights holders are looking upstream — and the same companies that built the modern web are being asked to block it.

What comes next for internet users?

Expect this debate to heat up as more tech companies are pulled into the argument. The interests of internet giants like Google are being pitted against the copyright claims of giant media broadcasters and sports rights holders. Users are caught in the middle — potentially losing access to lawful tools and information while determined infringers route around blocks.

Mashable notes that Google is pushing back against the latest legislative attempts to control the internet, and its rationales center on proportionality and real-world harm. The company warns that catch-all DNS, IP, and VPN blocking guarantees impact on law-abiding users and web hosts, even when pirates find workarounds.

The battlefield has shifted from chasing elusive streaming operators to regulating the plumbing of the internet itself. That is why Google comes out against site blocking now — and why the outcome in the EU may foreshadow what American users face next.

← Open in blast feed