Streaming fraud: Paris Court orders targeted blocking without derailing the hosting regime.

The decision was eagerly awaited by a sector where data plays a paramount role: on October 2, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court (case no. 24/10705) ordered OVH and the direct host to prevent access from France to two sites selling fake music streams - a black market for "_success_" that distorts charts and revenues.

The court confirmed the established approach: no generalised surveillance, but a targeted, effective and proportionate injunction to put an end to proven harm.

The facts and procedural approach: an accelerated procedure on the merits calibrated for urgency.

The SNEP (National Union of Phonographic Publishing) applied to the judge ruling under the accelerated procedure on the merits, on the basis of Article 6-I-3 LCEN, after an amicable phase during which it had notified OVH of the unlawful nature of the two sites in question [1].

OVH responded that it was an indirect host (server leased to a client) and could not unilaterally cut off access.

The court organised the proceedings over a dense sequence: summons of August 20, 2024, adjournments, oral argument on April 7, 2025, and delivery of the judgment on October 2, 2025 [2]. The decision is deemed adversarial despite the default of one of the defendants and is provisionally enforceable.

Two procedural points merit practitioners' attention.

First, the choice of the accelerated procedure on the merits, ideal for evolving online infringements: the judge may prescribe "_all measures appropriate to prevent or bring an end to harm_", without prejudging potential criminal or unfair competition proceedings, which were in any event deemed "_moot_" once the harm was established.

Second, the flexibility of the decision: the court declared itself competent to update the measures if domain names or access paths change - a key feature given the frequent migration of illegal services.

The harm: a data-driven evidentiary demonstration.

The court found collective harm to SNEP members after examining test purchases: the ordering of 10,000 "plays" by a judicial officer produced massive increases on Spotify, SoundCloud and YouTube for tracks created for this purpose.

The reasoning places these findings within the "_market-centric_" model of platforms: the royalty received for a track is a ratio between its plays and the total plays across each platform. Distorting the numerator or the algorithmic popularity score therefore diverts a share of revenue and visibility to the detriment of honest rights holders.

The evidence is factual, quantified and directly linked to the infringement: it suffices to trigger cessation measures, without the need to exhaust the classifications of fraud, misleading commercial practices or unfair competition, as the judge specifies.

The European balancing act: what Scarlet Extended and UPC Telekabel say.

The reasoning follows the European line that rejects general filtering but accepts targeted injunctions.

In the Scarlet Extended judgment [3], the court held that an injunction requiring an ISP to set up, at its own expense and without time limit, a generalised filtering system of all its subscribers' communications to identify illegal sharing was contrary to EU law.

Three reasons structure the analysis.

First, the prohibition of general surveillance obligations (the current logic of the DSA): an intermediary cannot be made a permanent controller of the information it transmits. Second, the disproportionate interference with freedom to conduct a business: a costly, complex and permanent system goes beyond what is necessary in terms of the ISP's organisation and resources. Third, the risk of overblocking: failing to reliably distinguish lawful from unlawful content (exceptions, free works, authorised uploads), ex-ante filtering threatens freedom of information.

In the UPC Telekabel Wien judgment [4], the court accepted the possibility of a blocking injunction against an ISP to prevent access to a site infringing rights, subject to two cardinal conditions.

First, the choice of means belongs to the intermediary: the judge states an objective (prevent access) without prescribing the technology, thus preserving freedom to conduct a business. Second, the injunction must aim at a proportionate result: making access difficult and discouraging users, without requiring perfect effectiveness or imposing an excessive burden.

The court insists on the fair balance between intellectual property rights, the intermediary's freedom of enterprise and users' rights.

This is precisely the path followed by the Paris Judicial Court: refusal of a general surveillance obligation (principle), but a targeted, territorialised and technologically neutral injunction, with a cessation objective and the possibility of adapting the system if the infringement reconfigures.

The measures ordered: technological neutrality, obligation of result and disclosure.

The order requires OVH and the direct host (Mr K.O.) to prevent access to the two domain names, "_by any effective means of their choosing_", from French territory. Execution must be immediate and, at the latest, within fifteen days of service; the measure lasts eighteen months. The defendants must inform the SNEP of what they have implemented and bear the costs.

The judge specifies that the court may be re-seized to update the scope in the event of changes to domain names or access paths.

Regarding information disclosure, the court declined to require OVH to provide the site operators' identification details, as the company only deals with its direct client and had already provided its contact details; however, it ordered Mr K.O. to provide the SNEP with the identification data and contact details of the operators of the disputed sites. This allocation reflects the technical reality of hosting chains.

Scope and method: a productive orthodoxy.

Legally, the solution is classical: application of the LCEN read in the light of the DSA and CJEU case law, with refusal to turn the host into a censor.

Technically, it is neutral: the judge imposes no architecture, but a result.

Practically, the interest is high: the decision provides an operating method for digital disputes where the infringement is proven by "_data-driven_" findings and where swift, targeted and adaptive action is needed without creating a private internet police.

---

[1] justanotherpanel.com and buybestsuperfans.com.

[2] TJ Paris, October 2, 2025, case no. 24/10705.

[3] CJEU, Scarlet Extended v. Sabam, November 24, 2011, C-70/10.

[4] CJEU, UPC Telekabel Wien, March 27, 2014, C-314/12.