Football Association Premier League LTD v Eircom LTD T/A EIR & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Plaintiff for an extension of a prior High Court Order originally made on 15th July 2019 and extended on 15th June 2020. The Order prescribes measures to block illegal streaming of football matches during the 2021/2022 season. The Defendants are major internet service providers (ISPs) in the jurisdiction, characterized as “mere conduits” under Directive 2000/31/EC. The original Order was a “live blocking injunction” aimed at preventing illegal streaming of the Plaintiff’s football matches. The proceedings have been stayed and subject to periodic review, with the latest application seeking a further extension to 30th June 2022 and amendments to adapt to technological changes. Affidavit evidence was submitted supporting the extension and modifications.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the existing blocking injunction Order should be extended for the 2021/2022 football season.
2. Whether the proposed amendments to the Order are necessary and appropriate to maintain its effectiveness against technological circumvention.
3. Whether the Order respects the fundamental rights of the parties affected, including ISPs and internet users.
4. Whether the duration of the extended Order and provisions for review are reasonable.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The extension and amendments to the Order are necessary to prevent ongoing illegal streaming of football matches.
• The changes ensure the Order remains effective against adaptations by illegal streaming operators circumventing the existing terms.
• Affidavit evidence from multiple sources demonstrates the necessity and reasonableness of the extension and amendments.
• The duration of a one-year extension with provisions for review and liberty to apply for further extensions is appropriate.

Defendants' Positions

• All Defendants have taken a responsible and reasonable position regarding the application.
• One Defendant supports the application and does not oppose it.
• Other Defendants are neutral, raising no objections or comments to the proposed draft Order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied established legal principles for blocking injunctions as set out in previous judgments, particularly the necessity of the Order, proportionality, respect for fundamental rights, and reasonableness of duration and review provisions. The court found that the extension and amendments were necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the Order in light of evolving technology used by illegal streaming operators. The risk of “over-blocking” legitimate internet use was addressed and found to be minimal based on evidence. The court noted that the Order protects the rights of ISPs by including an emergency suspension mechanism and provisions allowing the Defendants to seek variation or discharge of the Order if needed. The proposed one-year extension with a stay of proceedings and liberty to apply for further extension was deemed reasonable. The Defendants’ responsible and neutral or supportive stance further supported the appropriateness of the extension and amendments.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the application, making the Order extending the blocking injunction for the 2021/2022 season with the proposed amendments.

HOLDING: The application to extend and amend the Order is GRANTED with liberty to apply for future extensions or variations.

The decision ensures continued legal protection against illegal streaming while balancing the rights of ISPs and internet users. The ruling does not establish new precedent but confirms the ongoing application of established principles to adapt injunctions dynamically in response to technological developments.