Piracy Shield and fundamental rights: the Italian anti-piracy system under scrutiny by the European Union
Gianpaolo Todisco
In February 2024, Italy introduced a system to combat digital piracy that was unprecedented in Europe: Piracy Shield. Designed to block the illegal distribution of sporting events and copyright-protected content, the system is managed by AGCOM and is based on a mechanism that promptly blocks access to suspicious content, with a response time of less than 30 minutes.
However, just over a year after it took effect, the European Commission raised formal concerns about the Italian system’s compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA), with particular reference to the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, transparency, and data protection.
What does Piracy Shield cover?
The system allows rights holders (e.g., television broadcasters) to report infringements in real time and obtain a blocking order from AGCOM for ISPs, DNS resolvers, CDNs, and VPN providers. All of this can be done without prior judicial approval. The mechanism also applies to dynamic IP addresses and foreign DNS servers, thereby rendering the migration of content to new domains ineffective.
The objective is clear: to prevent the illegal broadcasting of live events (especially sports), where the effectiveness of protection is measured in hours, not years.
The European Union's call
On June 13, 2025, the European Commission notified the Italian government of a request for formal clarification, highlighting potential issues regarding compliance with the DSA, which took full effect in February 2024.
The main concerns:
Lack of transparency: there is no adequate right to be heard or public justification for blocking decisions.
Overblocking: Numerous cases of legitimate sites being wrongly blocked have been reported, including even Google services.
The absence of prior judicial review, contrary to Article 8 of the DSA, which requires procedural safeguards when legal content is restricted.
Furthermore, requiring providers to implement blocks without independent oversight could violate the principle of technological neutrality and raise sensitive issues regarding the liability of intermediaries.
The practical consequences: inconvenience and protests
In addition to regulatory concerns, the system has already had tangible consequences:
The VPN provider AirVPN has stopped providing services to Italian citizens, as it considers it impossible to operate in accordance with its standards of transparency and data protection.
Some public DNS resolvers (Cloudflare, OpenDNS) have had to change their policies to avoid indirect liability.
Ordinary users have complained that they are unable to access entirely lawful content, reporting that this has a crippling effect on the digital ecosystem.
The balance between copyright protection and digital rights
The heart of the debate is legal and constitutional: how far can copyright protection extend without compromising fundamental freedoms such as access to information, freedom of enterprise, and the protection of privacy?
The Digital Services Act establishes a model of transparent and proportionate moderation, which requires:
human assessment and justification of decisions,
the option for users to appeal,
the publication of transparency reports by the authorities.
The Piracy Shield, in its current form, appears to sacrifice these safeguards in favor of efficient but superficial copyright protection.
The debate between Italy and the European Commission is only just beginning. If the Italian government fails to provide satisfactory answers, formal infringement proceedings will be initiated, potentially leading to regulatory changes or sanctions.
In the meantime, the debate also involves the national courts, where appeals have already been filed against AGCOM for violating constitutional rights, and Parliament, which may have to review the underlying legislation in light of the European Commission’s observations.