Cloudflare vs AGCOM: The Battle Over Blocking Piracy and the Future of Internet Gatekeeping

When a U.S.-based internet infrastructure company finds itself sanctioned by an Italian authority for not blocking illegal football streams, it’s more than just a fight about copyright - it’s a snapshot of the new digital order, where global tech platforms and national regulators collide over who polices the internet, and how.

Inside the Sanction: What Happened?

In late 2024, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM slapped Cloudflare with a sanction for not fully cooperating in blocking access to websites illegally streaming football matches - a lucrative business for broadcasters like DAZN and Sky. The move was not sudden: AGCOM had previously sent Cloudflare multiple formal warnings and orders, citing the company’s services as a common backbone for pirate sites distributing live sports content.

Italy’s anti-piracy law, passed in 2023 and refined in 2024, empowers AGCOM to order network service providers - like Cloudflare - to swiftly disable access to infringing domains and IP addresses. The law’s strict timelines (as fast as 30 minutes) and broad reach leave little room for hesitation or technical debate.

A Regulatory Maze - And a Missed Seat at the Table?

According to official documents, all major players in the Italian digital market were invited to shape the anti-piracy framework. Cloudflare, however, did not participate in key technical meetings, a move that may have cost the company a say in the practicalities of enforcement. After being formally notified of the misuse of its services, Cloudflare still failed, in AGCOM’s view, to comply with orders or to engage with Italy’s Piracy Shield platform.

Cloudflare’s response? The company claims the sanction is based on a flawed, overly restrictive interpretation of the law - one that threatens the technical stability of the internet and sets a dangerous precedent for intermediaries worldwide. They also cite their strong anti-piracy record in the U.S., where content protections are robust but procedures differ.

What’s at Stake: More Than Just Football

This isn’t just about football, or even about copyright. The Cloudflare–AGCOM standoff highlights fundamental questions: How much responsibility do infrastructure providers have for content passing through their networks? Who decides what gets blocked - and how fast? And when national laws collide with global digital infrastructure, who gets the final say?

AGCOM insists its measures protect Italy’s creative economy and don’t impede digital innovation. But with cross-border tech giants under increasing pressure to act as enforcers, the boundaries between platform, policeman, and judge are blurring fast.

Conclusion: A Precedent with Global Ripples

As Cloudflare challenges the AGCOM ruling in court, the outcome could set a precedent for how far regulators can push internet intermediaries to police content. For now, the message is clear: in the battle over digital piracy, the rules are getting stricter, the timelines shorter, and the cost of noncompliance much higher - for everyone, not just the pirates.

WIKICROOK

• AGCOM: AGCOM is Italy’s communications regulator, now authorized to quickly block pirate streaming sites and enforce media and digital content laws.
• DNS Blocking: DNS blocking prevents access to certain websites by disrupting domain name resolution, commonly used to block malicious or unwanted online content.
• Intermediary Liability: Intermediary liability is the legal responsibility of online platforms for unlawful user content, impacting cybersecurity, free speech, and digital rights.
• Piracy Shield: Piracy Shield is an Italian platform that quickly blocks websites sharing pirated content, helping protect copyright holders and the creative industry.
• Compliance Window: A compliance window is the set period organizations have to meet cybersecurity regulations or orders, like disabling access to illegal sites, before facing penalties.