Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, fined Cloudflare more than €14 million after saying the company failed to comply with an order to help block access to online content identified as pirated. Cloudflare challenged the penalty and the Piracy Shield system behind the order. In July 2026, Lazio’s Regional Administrative Court rejected Cloudflare’s challenges and upheld the fine at that administrative-court stage; the available reporting does not establish that every possible appeal has ended.
What Italy fined Cloudflare for
AGCOM’s decision was not an ordinary website takedown order. The regulator said Cloudflare had to take technical or organizational measures to make specified content unavailable to users in Italy, including disabling DNS resolution for reported domains, blocking traffic to reported IP addresses, or using equivalent measures. AGCOM said Cloudflare did not comply with an earlier order, Decision 49/25/CONS, issued on February 18, 2025. The penalty followed in Decision 333/25/CONS, dated December 29, 2025, and was announced on January 8, 2026. AGCOM’s announcement describes the alleged non-compliance and the measures at issue.
The headline phrase “refusing to block pirate sites” is shorthand. It can suggest that Cloudflare hosted or published the material and declined to delete it. The dispute described by AGCOM instead concerns access blocking: whether Cloudflare, as an infrastructure provider, was required to impede access to targets identified through Italy’s anti-piracy process. AGCOM characterized Cloudflare as a service provider involved in the accessibility of illegally distributed content; that is not the same as saying it was the content’s publisher or primary host.
Recommended Free Tools
AGCOM’s official wording is “more than €14 million.” Some news reports give an approximate figure of €14.2 million, but the regulator’s announcement uses the broader amount. The decision imposing the penalty is Decision 333/25/CONS.
#1 Best Overall
- Compact and Efficient Design: The FortiGate 40F is designed for small to mid-sized businesses and enterprise branch offices, featuring a compact, fanless desktop form factor that ensures quiet operation and minimizes space usage.
- Robust Connectivity Options: Equipped with 5 GE RJ45 ports, including 1 WAN port and 4 internal ports, this model provides essential connectivity and flexibility for various network configurations in a small-scale environment.
- High-Performance Security: Offers up to 1 Gbps IPS throughput and 600 Mbps threat protection throughput, using Fortinet’s purpose-built security processor technology to deliver industry-leading performance and protection for SSL encrypted traffic.
- Advanced Threat Protection: Integrated with Fortinet’s AI-powered FortiGuard Labs, the FortiGate 40F offers comprehensive cybersecurity, identifying and mitigating both known and unknown threats to maintain robust security across your network.
- Simplified Management and Deployment: Features a user-friendly management console that provides comprehensive network automation and visibility, coupled with Zero Touch Integration with Fortinet’s Security Fabric for easy deployment.
What Piracy Shield does
Piracy Shield is an AGCOM-backed system for processing reports of online piracy and enabling rapid blocking, particularly for live audiovisual events. It became operational on February 1, 2024, under the framework expanded by Italy’s Law No. 93/2023, enacted on July 14, 2023. AGCOM’s overview describes the platform and its legal context.
At a high level, rights holders or other authorized participants submit information about suspected unauthorized streams or access points. The system can trigger orders aimed at domain-name resolution, traffic to IP addresses, or other technical routes used to reach the reported content. Cloudflare says providers are expected to act within 30 minutes; that timing is the company’s description of the system and should be understood as its account of the compliance burden, rather than an independently established finding here.
Blocking a domain or IP address does not erase content from the internet. It makes a particular route to it harder or impossible for affected users to use. A block’s reach depends on what is targeted and how the provider implements it: a hostname-specific DNS block is different from an IP-level network block.
Rank #2
- HARDWARE PLUS SECURITY SERVICES: FortiGate-60F Firewall Appliance bundled with 1 year of FortiCare Premium and FortiGuard Unified Threat Protection.
- UNIFIED THREAT PROTECTION (UTP): Secures against advanced online threats with comprehensive web filtering and anti-botnet technologies.
- OPTIMIZED FOR MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES: Tailored for businesses needing robust security without the infrastructure of larger enterprises.
- RELIABLE CUSTOMER SUPPORT: FortiCare Premium ensures high-quality support and service continuity.
- EFFECTIVE PROTECTION: Employs advanced filtering technologies to safeguard against sophisticated threats.
Why Cloudflare was involved
Cloudflare provides several kinds of internet infrastructure, including content delivery and reverse-proxy services, DNS services, and network security and routing functions. Those services can sit between a visitor and a website, or help translate a domain name into a network address. They do not all control content in the same way, and providing infrastructure is not equivalent to operating the website itself.
AGCOM’s position was that Cloudflare’s services were involved in making the reported material accessible and that the Italian anti-piracy framework therefore imposed blocking obligations on it. The core legal question is whether and how a provider at these infrastructure layers can be required to implement a block, even when it is not the publisher or primary host of the material.
Why Cloudflare objected
Cloudflare said it appealed the fine, filing on March 8, 2026, and publicly announced the challenge on March 16. In its statement about the appeal, the company argued that Piracy Shield lacks adequate transparency, judicial oversight, prior notice, and meaningful redress for affected parties. It also argued that the process creates risks for legitimate services and raises questions under European law, including the Digital Services Act. These are Cloudflare’s arguments, not conclusions to treat as settled legal findings.
Rank #3
- 【Up to 1100 Mbps VPN Speed 】 Hardware-accelerated WireGuard and OpenVPN-DCO deliver up to 1100 Mbps VPN throughput, over 3× faster than Brume 2 for smooth remote access and file transfers.
- 【Three 2.5G Ports & Multi-WAN】Tri-port 2.5GbE design with flexible WAN LAN configuration supports multi-gigabit wired setups, dual-ISP Multi-WAN and failover to keep home and SOHO networks online.
- 【Stealth VPN Obfuscation】VPN obfuscation disguises VPN traffic as regular HTTPS, helping you evade blocking, bypass restrictive networks and maintain stable, private connections.
- 【DPI protection】Deep Packet Inspection with visual dashboards blocks adult/gambling/malicious sites, while SQM and QoS prioritize gaming, calls, and video when bandwidth is tight
- 【OpenWrt & USB 3.0 Expansion】OpenWrt with 1GB DDR4 and 8GB eMMC lets you install plugins and build VPN, ad-blocking or NAS, while USB 3.0 Type‑C connects high-speed storage or 4G/5G dongles
The company’s objections center on the speed and scope of blocking. A rapid response may be useful when a live event is being streamed unlawfully, but a provider may have little time to investigate a report, determine whether the target is correctly identified, and assess whether a block reaches more than the intended material. Cloudflare has also disputed the penalty’s calculation. AGCOM’s published announcement states the sanction and its basis; claims about alternative calculations or the fine’s proportionality should be attributed to the company unless supported by a court finding.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Why an IP block can affect unrelated sites
Internet addresses are not always dedicated to a single website. Multiple domains or services may share an IP address, particularly when they rely on hosting or delivery infrastructure. A block aimed at one reported destination can therefore interfere with unrelated sites that use the same address. By contrast, a block targeting a specific domain name may be narrower, though it can still be wrong or become outdated if a domain changes how it is served.
Other technical complications include domains moving between addresses, content being distributed through a CDN, and a website hosting both lawful and unlawful material. A DNS block can prevent a particular resolver from returning an address, but it does not remove the underlying content and may not prevent access through another resolver or route. An IP block may be broader than intended. In either case, the result depends on the target data and implementation.
Rank #4
- Runs UniFi Network for full-stack network management
- Manages 30+ UniFi Network devices and 300+ clients
- 1 Gbps routing with IDS/IPS
- Multi-WAN load balancing
- 0.96" LCM status display
There is evidence that mistaken reports have been a concern in the wider Piracy Shield system. AGCOM previously took action concerning DAZN and a mistaken blocking report involving Google Drive; see Decision 400/24/CONS and AGCOM’s related announcement. That episode shows that erroneous reports can arise, but it does not by itself establish that the Cloudflare fine was unlawful. Cloudflare has also cited other alleged collateral effects, which should be understood as the company’s reported examples unless independently substantiated.
The case’s status and why it matters
Cloudflare’s appeal did not leave the fine unresolved at the first administrative-court stage. On July 17, 2026, TAR Lazio rejected Cloudflare’s challenges and upheld the penalty, according to ANSA’s report. That outcome means the fine survived that court review. It does not establish, on the information available here, whether Cloudflare has pursued or may pursue a further appeal, or whether every broader European-law question has been resolved.
The case matters beyond one company and one penalty because anti-piracy orders can reach intermediaries that provide DNS, CDN, hosting, cloud, or network services. Rights holders argue that fast intervention is important when live streams lose value quickly and conventional proceedings may be too slow. Infrastructure providers counter that broad or opaque orders can place the cost of investigating claims on companies that lack full context, while mistakes can disrupt lawful users.
The difficult policy questions are practical as well as legal: how precisely must a block identify its target; what evidence should be disclosed; how quickly can a provider challenge a mistaken instruction; who bears responsibility for collateral damage; and how should a country-specific order apply to services with users and infrastructure across borders? The July ruling upholds AGCOM’s action in this case, but it does not make those technical and governance trade-offs disappear.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
