Piracy Shield and Fundamental Rights: The Italian Anti-Piracy System Under Scrutiny by the European Union
In February 2024, Italy introduced a system to combat digital piracy that is unprecedented in Europe: Piracy Shield. Designed to block the illegal distribution of sporting events and copyrighted content, the system is managed by AGCOM and relies on a mechanism for promptly blocking access to suspicious content, with a response time of less than 30 minutes.
However, just over a year after its entry into force, the European Commission has raised formal concerns regarding 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 the Piracy Shield entail?
The system allows rights holders (e.g., television broadcasters) to report infringements in real time, obtaining a blocking order from AGCOM for ISPs, DNS resolvers, CDNs, and VPN providers. All of this is 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 goal is clear: to prevent the unauthorized broadcasting of live events (especially sporting events), where the effectiveness of protection is measured in hours, not years.
The European Union's call
On June 13, 2025, the European Commission sent the Italian government a formal request for clarification, highlighting potential issues regarding compliance with the DSA, which came into full effect in February 2024.
Key findings:
Lack of transparency: There is no provision for an adequate opportunity to be heard or for a public explanation of the blocking decisions.
Overblocking: There have been numerous reports of legitimate websites being blocked by mistake, including even Google services.
The absence of prior judicial review, in violation of 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: between inconvenience and protests
In addition to regulatory concerns, the system has already had tangible consequences:
The VPN provider AirVPN has suspended its services to Italian citizens, stating that it is impossible to operate while adhering to its standards of transparency and data protection.
Some public DNS resolvers (Cloudflare, OpenDNS) have had to change their policies to avoid vicarious liability.
Ordinary users have complained that they are unable to access entirely legal content, noting 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: to what extent can copyright protection be extended without compromising fundamental freedoms such as access to information, freedom of enterprise, and the protection of privacy?
The Digital Services Act requires a transparent and proportionate moderation model, which entails:
human assessment and rationale for the decision,
the user’s right to appeal,
publication of transparency reports by the authorities.
The Piracy Shield, as currently drafted, appears to sacrifice these safeguards in favor of efficient but superficial copyright protection.
The standoff 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.
Meanwhile, the debate has also reached the national courts, where lawsuits have already been filed against AGCOM for violating constitutional rights, and Parliament, which may have to revise the underlying legislation in light of the European Commission’s observations.