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

The court may extend a website-blocking order for a further sporting season where the evidence shows that the order has effectively prevented access to infringing streams, without significant overblocking, and that circumvention remains a real risk. The court must be satisfied both that it has jurisdiction and that exercising its discretion remains appropriate. Changes to the order, including expanding its scope and delaying notification to hosting providers, may be justified where they respond to evidence of circumvention.

UEFA sought an extension of an order made on 21 December 2017 requiring the defendants to block, or impede, access to streaming servers delivering infringing live streams of UEFA football match footage to consumers in the United Kingdom. The reasons for the original order were given in Union Des Associations Européennes De Football v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 3414 (Ch).

The application was supported by some defendants and not opposed by the others. The proposed order covered additional competitions, enlarged the relevant class of infringing streaming servers, and delayed notification to hosting providers to reduce circumvention.

1. Jurisdiction and discretion. The court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to make the requested order and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend the blocking order for a further season.
2. Evidence supporting extension. The evidence showed that the original order had been effective in blocking access to the target servers during UEFA matches. Checks had disclosed no overblocking. One stream had been blocked erroneously, but it was an infringing stream outside the original order, rather than an instance of overblocking.
3. Modified terms. The extension could cover additional UEFA competitions and enlarge the subset of infringing streaming servers subject to blocking. A short delay before notifying hosting providers was justified because the evidence demonstrated attempts to circumvent the original order.
4. The order sought was therefore made for essentially the same reasons as those given for the original order. There was no order as to costs.