Blog
-
Doctors lose new jobs package as strike to go ahead
The offer of 1,000 more training posts has been withdrawn after the union refused to scrap the planned six-day strike. -
Millions of older people to get vaccine against serious lung infection
Millions of older people can now get protection against a virus which causes serious lung infections like bronchitis and pneumonia – preventing potentially thousands of hospital admissions a year. All adults aged 80 and over, and people living in a care home for older adults, are now eligible for the NHS respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) […] -
US Prosecutors Hint at More Charges for Alleged South American Drug Baron Sebastián Marset
American prosecutors and the defense team for alleged South American druglord Sebastian Marset waived his right to a speedy trial today, while the U.S. government signaled that more charges are likely on the way.
Marset appeared for his arraignment hearing at the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia, where he was read the charges against him. He shook hands with his attorneys, up from Miami, and signed a waiver for a guaranteed quick trial.
A Uruguayan national with operations in Paraguay, the heavily tattooed Marset was arrested in the south of Bolivia in a surprise early morning raid on March 13. He was promptly extradited to the U.S., having his first formal hearing on March 20th.
Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. told Marset, wearing a dark green prison jumpsuit and white sneakers, that he faced up to 20 years in a U.S. prison, followed by three years of supervised release, if convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He may also be fined no less than $500,000.
Prosecutor Anthony T. Aminoff, who heads his district’s narcotics and money laundering unit, told the judge that the two parties wanted a status conference delayed until May 20. In a status conference, both sides report to the judge on progress as the case readies for trial.
Aminoff said the extra time was needed to continue negotiations because a superseding indictment “is likely.”
A superseding indictment augments the existing indictment and typically adds charges. The announcement is significant because it means Marset, 34, could be charged with drug trafficking or other penalties more serious than the current money laundering charges for moving money through US banks.
The current indictment refers repeatedly to drug trafficking activity, but does not charge him with trafficking itself.
Described as “a most-wanted fugitive throughout the Southern Cone of South America,” Marset had a $2 million U.S. government bounty on him before his capture.
The U.S. State Department said a multinational law enforcement investigation had “linked a criminal network led by Marset to more than 16 tons of cocaine seized in Europe.”
Marset faces charges in Paraguay for international drug trafficking, criminal association and money laundering. Uruguayan police have linked him to criminal enterprises there but have not yet presented formal changes.
In their indictment, federal prosecutors in Virginia allege he ran a narcotics organization that moved “thousands of kilograms of cocaine, including as many as 10 tons at a time, from South America typically to Europe.”
Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal were among the countries listed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office as trafficking targets.
The high-profile Uruguayan’s arrest and extradition to the U.S. came after renewed regional anti-narcotics cooperation, just months after the Drug Enforcement Administration resumed operations in Bolivia following a 17-year absence. The operation came after Bolivia’s participation in a March 7 anti-narcotics summit convened by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
-
New BVI Transparency Rules Have Fatal Flaws, Anti-Corruption Advocates Warn
The British Virgin Islands cracked open Wednesday its corporate secrecy regime that has made it a go-to jurisdiction for tax evaders and other financial criminals — but there’s a catch.
Breaking with its decades-long policy of total secrecy, BVI authorities may now direct company services agents to provide corporate information upon reviewing requests.
However, the new regulations stipulate that a company’s registered agent must be notified whenever authorities receive such a request.
Anti-corruption groups say this ruins the element of surprise, acting as an early warning system for bad actors while exposing the identities of the people investigating them — including journalists, and transparency advocates.
“A register that notifies company owners when their information is accessed is not compatible with global transparency efforts,” said Margot Mollat senior researcher at the U.K. chapter of the anti-corruption group Transparency International.
“It will put journalists and civil society actors at serious risk of retaliation and legal intimidation, which in turn will have a chilling effect on any public interest reporting,” she told OCCRP.
Some in the legal industry have defended the new framework as a necessary compromise.
Ogier Global Law Firm, which advises clients on BVI law, explained in a briefing that the update “represents a significant shift in corporate transparency, evolving from a system once reserved strictly for law enforcement into a more balanced model that aligns with modern international standards.”
Noting that the law aims to protect individual privacy, the firm added: ”This means transparency will only be used where necessary.”
To gain access, an applicant must pay a $75 fee and show credible evidence that their inquiry serves the public interest, such as preventing financial crime. The government will only disclose information for individuals holding at least a 25 percent stake in the business. The applicant can then see the owner’s full legal name, nationality, birth month and year, and specific level of control.
The system includes what Ogier described as “robust check and balances to protect individuals from unnecessary exposure.”
Once a company is notified of a data request, it has five business days to formally object. That can trigger an appeals process that freezes the release of data, according to the new regulations enacted by authorities in BVI, which is a self-governing British Overseas Territory.
Companies can also apply for advance privacy exemptions if disclosure would expose owners to serious risks like kidnapping, extortion, or violence.
Advocacy groups say the new regulations allow too much leeway for companies to continue to hide information from the public.
“Companies registered in these Overseas Territories have been used to hide billions of pounds from corruption and embezzlement, avoid sanctions, or launder money linked to drugs, human trafficking and illegal deforestation,” said Mollat of Transparency International.
“Genuine beneficial ownership disclosure should empower investigators to detect these suspicious activities, not create bureaucratic barriers that protect those with something to hide or tips them off so they can move their assets,” she added.
While transparency advocates view this warning window as a dangerous loophole, BVI Financial Services Commission documents reveal the massive offshore industry actually fought for an even longer 10 to 21-day objection period, citing widespread concerns over media access.
-
The Virtues of Urban Pocket Gardens
This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.
It’s not just easy to miss, but often downright hard to notice. A simple patch of greenery in a city may seem like a blip in the concrete jungle, but it’s an extremely powerful way to solve a bunch of problems at once: Studies have shown that green spaces improve urbanites’ mental health, make summers more bearable and prevent flooding by soaking up stormwater.
When these plots are planned — as opposed to letting vacant lots grow wild, which is valuable in its own right — they become extra powerful. You may have even enjoyed one without knowing it: the “pocket garden.” Tucked into spaces accessible to pedestrians, like sidewalks, hospital grounds and campuses, they can be engineered to turn heat-absorbing concrete into air-cooling oases packed with vegetation and seating for people to escape the metropolitan bustle.
“This increasing prioritization of creating green spaces in unexpected spots and underutilized spaces in communities is not only going to be making our communities more resilient, it’s going to be making people healthier,” said Dan Lambe, chief executive of the nonprofit Arbor Day Foundation, which promotes urban forestry. “A little bit of green goes a long way.”
“A little bit of green goes a long way.”
Pocket gardens aren’t gardens in the agriculturally productive sense, but ornamental grounds. (Though there’s nothing stopping a designer from adding a fruit tree or two.) Ideally, they’re host to native plant species, which bring several benefits. For one, they attract native pollinators like insects and birds, which get a source of food that powers them to go on and fertilize plants elsewhere, like crops on urban farms. And for another, if the vegetation is adapted to a particular region or condition, it’s already used to the local climate — drought-tolerant varieties, for instance, won’t require as much water to survive. Furthermore, choosing native grasses that don’t need mowing can cut down on maintenance costs. And picking trees with big canopies will increase the amount of shade for people to use as refuge from the heat. (Sorry, palm trees, that means you’re disqualified.)
Biodiversity — mixing tree species as opposed to planting 10 of the same kind — is key here. That attracts a broader range of pollinating animals and builds resiliency into the system: If you only plant one variety of tree and a disease shows up, it can spread rapidly.
And speaking of disease, trees have an additional superpower in their ability to scrub urban air of the pollutants that contribute to respiratory problems. In addition, the vegetation of a pocket park releases water vapor, bringing down air temperatures. This mitigates what’s called the urban heat island effect, in which cities absorb the sun’s energy all day and slowly release it into the night. Combined, reduced air pollution and temperatures improve public health.
There’s also the harder-to-quantify bonus of people getting out of their cars and gathering in public spaces, no matter how diminutive. “It’s actually a transition toward the pedestrian — toward the person — and away from the vehicle,” said Eric Galipo, director of campus planning and urban design at the architecture firm FCA, which has integrated pocket gardens into their projects. (The photo with this story is of one of the firm’s projects, at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in New Jersey.) “We may not spend as much time together as a society as we used to, and so these are great opportunities for that sort of connection to happen.”
When the rains come, these verdant plots take on another role as an infrastructural asset. As the planet heats up, rainfall increases because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. In response, cities like Los Angeles and Pittsburgh are getting rid of concrete to open up more green spaces, which absorb rainfall, allowing it to seep underground. This reduces pressure on sewer systems that are struggling to handle increasingly heavy deluges. These systems, after all, were designed long ago for a different climate than we’re dealing with today.
When a city prioritizes green spaces, you can actually hear the difference. Barcelona, Spain, for instance, has been developing so-called superblocks, which aim to improve city life by transforming car infrastructure into walkable spaces. That includes the development of “green axes” (the plural of “axis,” not the tool for chopping) full of vegetation and paths for strolling. A recent study found that after these spaces were pedestrianized and vehicles disappeared, average noise levels fell by 3.1 decibels. (For context, a car traveling at 65 mph from 25 feet away registers at 77 decibels.)
“There’s a gravity to this green space that brings people out.”
While 3.1 may not seem like much, each increase of 10 decibels means a tenfold rise in loudness. And we have to consider not just the decibels but how the kind of noise changed as Barcelona developed green axes: Revving engines, honking horns, and even the occasional cacophony of a car accident were replaced with voices. As the built environment dramatically changed, so too did the way that folks on foot experienced their surroundings. “If people see green in general, the noise perception tends to change,” said Samuel Nello-Deakin, a postdoctoral researcher at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and lead author of the study. “You think that things are not as noisy as they actually are. So there’s also this interesting interaction … between sort of what you hear and what you see.” In addition, green spaces absorb city racket, keeping it from bouncing off of buildings and pavement, insulating residents from the din.
With less commotion come still more gains to public health. Noise pollution is an invisible crisis worldwide, as studies link the stress it causes not just to struggles with mental health, but physical problems like hypertension and heart disease. By contrast, pocket parks and other green spaces encourage people to ditch their cars and move their bodies. “There are also physical health benefits from walking, biking and being outside that over a lifetime tend to have a cumulative positive effect on what our society spends in health care,” Galipo said.
So as cities increasingly realize and utilize the power of greenery, the environmental, auditory and social fabric of the urban landscape transforms. “There’s a gravity to this green space that brings people out,” Lambe said. “And all of a sudden, neighbors are connecting, generations are connecting, cultures are connecting. Trees are about the one thing that everybody can agree on.”
The post The Virtues of Urban Pocket Gardens appeared first on Truthdig.
-
Cambodia Extradites Another Associate of Alleged ‘Criminal’ Conglomerate to China
Cambodia has extradited to China another alleged associate of the Prince Group, a Phnom Penh-based conglomerate that is widely accused of having operated cyber-scam centers built on forced labor.
Chinese state media reported today that Li Xiong arrived in Beijing after being arrested in Cambodia as a “result of joint law enforcement cooperation” between the two countries.
His extradition follows Prince Group Chairman Chen Zhi, who was arrested and sent to China in January.
Chinese state media described Li Xiong as a “core backbone member of Prince Group’s criminal enterprise.”
He faces charges including operating illegal casinos, fraud, and handling proceeds of crime, according to Chinese state media reports citing the Ministry of Public Security. The charges and allegations of his role in the Prince Group remain unproven.
Aside from being targeted by China, the Prince Group has been sanctioned by the U.S., South Korea and the U.K., which recently froze a number of London properties related to the conglomerate.
Li Xiong has served as chairman of Huione Group, which Chinese authorities allege is a subsidiary of the Prince Group, according to state media.
The U.S. sanctioned Huione Group alongside the Prince Group in October.
The U.S. Treasury Department accused Huione Group of laundering billions of dollars in illicit funds derived from crimes including “pig butchering” cyber-scams allegedly carried out by the Prince Group. However, the Treasury Department did not directly link the two corporate entities.
Cambodian corporate documents obtained by OCCRP confirm Li Xiong’s role in Huione Group companies. They also show that Hun To, the cousin of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, held shares one of the companies, Huione Pay Plc, along with Li Xiong.
Huione Pay told Reuters in 2024 that Hun To’s co-directorship did not include “day-to-day oversight” of company operations. Lawyers who have represented Hun To in Australia did not respond to a request for comment before publication.
Huione Group did not respond before publication to questions sent to company emails about Li Xiong’s arrest and extradition. Cambodia’s Cabinet Office did not respond to a request for comment.
Cambodia’s corporate registry also shows further business interests Li Xiong has in the country. They include Proteva Insurance PLC, as well as two real estate companies called Cocosili Investment Co Ltd, and Huione Education Co Ltd.
Like other China-born Prince Group associates, Li Xiong obtained Cambodian citizenship, according to the government’s royal gazette.
OCCRP reported in December on the multiple passports — in different names — held by a man born as Hu Xiaowei, who was a key Prince Group player. Hu Xiaowei and Prince Group Chairman Chen Zhi both obtained Cambodian citizenship, and forged bonds with political and economic elites in the Southeast Asian country.
The Prince Group has said the allegations made by U.S. and U.K. authorities are “baseless and appear aimed at justifying the unlawful seizure of assets worth billions of dollars.”
-

We’re Introducing Advertising!
Times are tough for media. Unless you’re owned by a socially-conscious billionaire (and good luck finding one of those), it’s hard for a publication to survive. Current Affairs does not have corporate backing. Nor do we have paywalls. Nor have we ever had advertising. We’re totally dependent on subscriptions and small donors. Unfortunately, our subscribers and small donors have been too miserly for our magazine to sustain itself long-term. So after much soul-searching, we have decided to alter our business model. We’re introducing advertising.

-
Digital Hopes, Real Power: From Revolution to Regulation
This is the second installment of a blog series reflecting on the global digital legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings.
From Russia—where wartime censorship and more stringent platform controls have choked dissenting voices—to Nigeria, with its aggressive takedown orders turning social media into political battlegrounds, and to Turkey, where sweeping “disinformation” laws have made platforms heavily policed spaces, freedom of expression online is under attack. Per Freedom House’s 2023 Freedom on the Net Report, 66% of internet users live where political or social sites are blocked, and 78% are in countries where people have been arrested for online posts. New social media regulations have emerged in dozens of countries in the past year alone.
The online landscape looks markedly different than it did fifteen years ago. Back then, social media was still new and largely free from legal restrictions: platforms moderated content in response to user reports, governments rarely targeted them directly, and blocks (when they happened) were temporary, with censorship mostly focused on whole websites that VPNs or proxies could easily bypass. The internet was far from free, but governments’ crude tactics left space for circumvention.
Those early restrictions, as crude as they were, marked the start of a rapid evolution in online censorship. Governments like Thailand, which blocked thousands of YouTube videos in 2007 over critical content, and Turkey, which demanded takedowns from YouTube before blocking the site entirely, tested legal and technical pressures to mute dissent and force platforms’ compliance. By 2011, governments weren’t just reacting—they had learned to pressure platforms into becoming instruments of state censorship, shifting their playbooks from blunt blocks to sophisticated systems of control that simple VPNs could no longer reliably bypass. Governments across the region were watching closely, and by the time the 2011 uprisings began, they were prepared to respond.
Looking Back
After learning that a Facebook page—We Are All Khaled Said, honoring a young man killed by police brutality—sparked Egypt’s street protests, Western media hailed online platforms as engines of democracy. Revolution co-creator Wael Ghonim told a journalist: “This revolution started on Facebook.” That claim was debated and contested for years; critically, Facebook had suspended the page two months earlier over pseudonyms violating its real-name policy, restoring it only after advocates intervened.
Once the protests moved to the streets, Egypt’s government—alert to social media’s power—quickly blocked Facebook and Twitter, then enacted a near-total shutdown (more on that in part 4 of this series). As history shows, the measures didn’t stop the revolution, and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down. For a brief moment, freedom appeared to be on the horizon. Unfortunately, that moment was short-lived.
Egypt’s Digital Dystopia
Just as the Egyptian military government quashed revolution in the streets, they also shut down online civic space. Today, Egypt’s internet ranks low on markers of internet freedom. The military government that has ruled Egypt since 2013 has imprisoned human rights defenders and enacted laws—including 2015’s Counter-terrorism Law and 2018’s Cybercrime Law—that grant the state broad authority to suppress speech and prosecute offenders.
The 2018 law demonstrates the ease with which cybercrime laws can be abused. Article 7 of the law allows for websites that constitute “a threat to national security” or to the “national economy” to be blocked. The Association of Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE) has criticized the loose definition of “national security” contained within the law, as “everything related to the independence, stability, security, unity and territorial integrity of the homeland.” Notably, individuals can also be penalized—and sentenced to up to six months imprisonment—for accessing banned websites.
Articles 25, which prohibits the use of technology to “infringe on any family principles or values in Egyptian society,” and 26, which prohibits the dissemination of material that “violates public morals,” have been used in recent years to prosecute young people who use social media in ways in which the government disapproves. Many of those prosecuted have been young women; for instance, belly dancer Sama Al Masry was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 300,000 Egyptian pounds under Article 26.
Beyond Egypt: Regional Trends
Egypt’s trajectory reflects a wider regional and global pattern. In the years following the uprisings, governments moved quickly to formalize legal authority over digital space, often under the banner of combating cybercrime, terrorism, or “false information.” These laws often contain vaguely worded provisions criminalizing “misuse of social media” or “harming national unity,” giving authorities wide discretion to prosecute speech.
In Qatar and Bahrain, a social media post can result in up to five years in jail. In 2018, prominent Bahraini human rights defender Nabeel Rajab was convicted of “spreading false rumours in time of war”, “insulting public authorities”, and “insulting a foreign country” for tweets he posted about the killing of civilians in Yemen and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Two years later, Qatar amended its penal code by setting criminal penalties for spreading “fake news.” Article 136 (bis) sets criminal penalties for broadcasting, publishing, or republishing “rumors or statements or false or malicious news or sensational propaganda, inside or outside the state, whenever it is intended to harm national interests or incite public opinion or disturb the social or public order of the state” and sets a punishment of a maximum of five years in prison, and/or 100,000 Qatari riyals. The penalty is doubled if the crime is committed in wartime.
Now, as war has once again reached the region, these laws are being put to the test. Bahraini authorities have arrested at least 100 people in relation to protests or expression related to the war, while Qatar has arrested more than 300 people on charges of spreading “misleading information.”
And in the UAE, at least 35 people—most or all of whom are foreign nationals—have been arrested and “accused of spreading misleading and fabricated content online that could harm national defence efforts and fuel public panic,” according to the Times of India. The arrests fall under the UAE’s 2022 Federal Decree Law No. 34 on Combating Rumours and Cybercrimes which—says Human Rights Watch—is, along with the country’s Penal Code, “used to silence dissidents, journalists, activists, and anyone the authorities perceived to be critical of the government, its policies, or its representatives.”
From Regional Practice to Global Pattern
Today roughly four out of five countries worldwide have enacted cybercrime legislation, a dramatic expansion over the past decade, with many governments adopting or revising such laws in the years following the Arab uprisings.
Outside the region, other nations have repurposed these laws to police speech. In Nigeria, journalists have been detained under the Cybercrime Act, with dozens of prosecutions documented since 2015. Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act has been used in thousands of cases—including hundreds against journalists—while in Uganda, authorities have prosecuted political critics under computer misuse laws for social media posts.
Cybercrime laws are only one piece of a broader toolkit that governments now deploy to control digital spaces. Over the past decade, authorities have introduced sweeping “disinformation” laws, platform liability rules, age verification laws, and data localization requirements that force companies to store data domestically or appoint legal representatives within national jurisdictions. These measures give governments leverage over global technology firms, enabling them to demand faster content removals, obtain user data, or threaten steep fines and throttling if platforms fail to comply. Rather than relying solely on blunt instruments like blocking entire websites, states increasingly govern speech through layered regulatory systems that pressure platforms to police users on the state’s behalf.
The platforms too have changed. The same social media companies that were once championed as tools of democratic mobilization now operate in more constrained environments—and often act as willing participants in repressing speech. Facing financial penalties and the prospect of being blocked entirely, many companies expanded compliance with takedown requests after 2011, as can be seen in the companies’ own transparency reports. They later invested heavily in automated technologies that remove vast quantities of content before it is ever publicly available.
Rights groups around the world, including EFF, have warned that these dynamics disproportionately impact historically marginalized and vulnerable groups, as well as journalists and other human rights defenders. Research by the Palestinian digital rights organization 7amleh and reporting by Human Rights Watch have documented how content moderation policies, government pressure, and opaque enforcement mechanisms increasingly converge—leaving activists, journalists, and human rights defenders caught between state censorship and platform governance.
The New Architecture of Repression
Looking back now, it’s clear that, fifteen years ago, governments were caught off guard. They crudely blocked platforms, shut down networks, and scrambled to contain movements they did not fully understand. But in the years since, states have systematically adapted, transforming what were once reactive measures into durable systems of control.
Today’s controls are embedded in law, outsourced to platforms, and justified through the language of security, safety, and order. Cybercrime statutes, disinformation frameworks, and platform regulations form a layered architecture that allows states to shape online expression at scale while maintaining a veneer of legality. In this system, repression is often procedural, bureaucratic, and continuous.
The question is no longer whether the internet can enable dissent, but whether it can still sustain it under these conditions.
This is the second installment of a blog series reflecting on the global digital legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings. Read the rest of the series here.
-

Google, Cloudflare, Cisco Lose Pirate Site DNS Blocking Appeal in France
Traditional site-blocking measures that require local ISPs to block subscriber access to pirate sites have been commonplace in France for years.
By blocking pirate domains through ISP DNS resolvers, subscriber access is effectively cut off. However, the measures were only partially effective, as many users simply switched to third-party DNS resolvers to get around them.
In 2024, an order from the Paris Judicial Court, requested by football and rugby rightsholder Canal+, aimed to patch that loophole. The order required Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco to actively block access to pirate sites through their own DNS resolvers, confirming that third-party intermediaries can be required to take responsibility.
Article L. 333-10
The DNS blocking order is grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sport Code, which enables rightsholders to request blocking measures against named pirate sites if they can demonstrate “serious and repeated infringement” of their exploitation rights.
To prevent pirate sites from being accessed on French soil, rightsholders may request that “all proportionate measures” are implemented by any online entity in a position to help.
The scope of Article L. 333-10 was always meant to be broad. There was little doubt that it included regular consumer ISPs. However, applying it to DNS resolvers was a different matter, and all three companies fought back.
Cisco was the most extreme in its response. The American company decided to stop offering its OpenDNS service in France, pending appeal. Google and Cloudflare kept their DNS resolvers online in the country but joined Cisco at the Paris Court of Appeal.
Five Appeals, Five Rejections
Last week, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on five separate appeals, where Cisco, Cloudflare, and Google appealed blocking orders that the French pay-TV provider Canal+ obtained. The court rejected all appeals and concluded that DNS blocking measures are both technically feasible and proportionate.
The news was first reported by the French news outlet L’Informé, which also published the orders.
This is the first time a French appeals court has validated the DNS blocking approach under Article L. 333-10, giving the strategy a considerably stronger legal basis. Specifically, the appeals court repeatedly stressed that DNS resolvers can be required to block pirate sites.
Defense Arguments Fail
The DNS providers raised various arguments in their defense. According to the court’s summary, Cloudflare and Cisco argued that their services have “only a neutral and passive function” and “neither transmit nor participate in infringement.” They compared their role to an address book: they translate domain names into IP addresses, and their involvement ends the moment they return that result to a user’s browser.
This argument failed to convince the court, which found that the “neutral and passive” nature of the DNS resolvers is simply irrelevant to Article L. 333-10. The law isn’t about liability at all. What matters is whether a service can help to block access to pirate sites, which DNS resolvers clearly can.
“The DNS resolution service allows its users, via the translation of a domain name into an IP address, to access websites on which sports competitions are broadcast in violation of rights-holders’ rights, and in particular to circumvent the blocking of those sites by ISPs,” the court wrote.
Google also argued that blocking pirate sites via third-party DNS services is not an effective deterrent, since it can be circumvented by using a VPN or switching to yet another DNS resolver.
The appeals court wasn’t moved by this argument either. French law doesn’t require blocking measures to be perfect, as long as they stop a subset of the visitors to pirate sites, it’s good enough.
“Any filtering measure can be circumvented, and this possibility does not render the measures in question ineffective,” the Paris Court of Appeal wrote.
Intermediaries Pick Up the Bill
Cisco, which shut down its OpenDNS service in France instead of complying with the original order, argued on appeal that implementing geo-targeted DNS blocking would require 64 person-weeks of engineering work.
However, the court was not swayed by this cost argument, noting in its decision that the estimate was “not supported by any objective evidence.” The court also pointed out that Cisco already offers a DNS filtering service to enterprise customers, which undermined the argument that there’s a significant technical challenge.
Cloudflare, meanwhile, offered no figures at all to quantify the cost, the court noted, adding that they also offer filtering options already.
At the end of the day, Cisco, Cloudflare, and Google will have to implement the blocking measures for hundreds of pirate site domains while covering the implementation costs themselves.
More IP Blocking Battles Ahead
Canal+ is pleased with the five appeals court rulings. The pay-TV service Canal+ said in a statement that the rulings are “more than a victory,” forming part of “a global approach that will be reinforced by the progressive deployment of complementary measures, including IP blocking.”
In France, the next anti-piracy frontier is automated IP-address blocking, which is expected to go live later this year, ahead of the FIFA football World Cup. According to L’Informé, the Roland Garros tennis tournament will serve as a trial opportunity.
In addition to DNS providers, Canal+ and other rightsholders have also obtained blocking orders against VPN providers. These are still under appeal.
The five orders of the Paris Court of Appeal (RG 24/09372), dated March 27, 2026, are available here (pdf), via L’Informé journalist Marc Rees.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.