Union Des Associations Européennes De Football v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors

Under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the court may require internet service providers to block or impede access to servers delivering infringing live streams where the jurisdictional threshold is met and the order is appropriate and proportionate. The court must independently assess the justification for an order, even where defendants support it and absent third parties are affected. Relevant safeguards include defined server-selection criteria, protection against overblocking and an appropriately limited duration.

UEFA sought an injunction requiring six major UK internet service providers to block or impede access to streaming servers supplying infringing live match streams. The application was made under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, implementing Article 8(3) of the Information Society Directive.

The requested order closely followed orders made in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch) and Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 1877 (Ch). The central issues were whether the jurisdictional requirements were met and whether the proposed blocking measures were appropriate and proportionate.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and that the requested order was appropriate and proportionate.
2. The jurisdictional requirements were established for essentially the same reasons as in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch). The conclusion that operators of the target servers commit an act of communication was supported by Stichting BREIN v Ziggo BV [EU:C:2017:456]. The conclusion that streaming uses a distinct technical means from cable or satellite broadcasting, requiring separate authorisation from the rights holder, was supported by VCAST Ltd v RTI SpA [EU:C:2017:913].
3. The proportionality assessment likewise followed the reasoning in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch). The court considered evidence of the scale of illicit streaming, the demonstrated effectiveness of earlier blocking orders, the absence of evidence of overblocking, and an additional server-selection criterion providing a further safeguard.
4. The court retained an independent responsibility to assess the order because it affected absent third parties. Defendant support or non-opposition did not by itself justify making the order. The order was to operate from 13 February 2018 until 26 May 2018. Confidentiality for some evidence and part of the order was justified.