From Cloudflare appeal against Agcom fine: 'Risk of indiscriminate blocking'

The key word is 'overblocking'. For Cloudflare, it is a photograph of a real risk: in order to hit a target (piracy) one ends up switching off the light to an entire digital palace. This is the metaphor chosen by Cloudflare to describe the side effect of Piracy Shield, the Italian anti-piracy platform that ended up at the centre of an institutional and legal clash after the 14 million euro fine imposed by Agcom. And which the US company, one of the world's leaders in Cdn (content distribution networks via the Internet), now announces it will challenge in court.

The point, according to Cloudflare's reading, which immediately challenged Agcom, arousing an uprising of shields from those directly interested in the audiovisual rights, that is, first and foremost, the Serie A, is not only the figure - defined as disproportionate - but the very idea of how the Internet is being 'governed': by acting on the paths (Dns, Vpn, infrastructures) instead of on the source of the contents. With the paradox, the company claims, of making the network less reliable just as it is becoming the backbone of schools, work, businesses, public administration.

Cloudflare first of all contests the premise: Agcom would have sanctioned it for an alleged failure to comply with the Piracy Shield 'despite the fact that Cloudflare had already initiated the legal procedures required to contest the regulation'. And he adds a second, more delicate level: the extension of the rule to a company like Cloudflare would be "incompatible with EU law (in particular with the Digital Services Act)". Even assuming it were applicable, the company writes, there would be a ceiling: 'No more than 2% of the previous year's turnover'. Hence the comparison that Cloudflare brings as an argument: on the basis of the profits recorded in Italy in 2024, "any sanction should therefore reach a maximum of 140,000 euros", while the one imposed is "100 times higher than the legal limit". It must be said that Agcom immediately clarified that the turnover taken into consideration is the global one.

The heart of Cloudflare's attack is technical: 'The current version of Piracy Shield actually misunderstands the architecture of the Internet'. And the underlying message of Cloudflare's challenge recalls the metaphor of the apartment building: if one tenant does not pay, the power to the whole building is not cut off.

Instead, said Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of the US company, 'Piracy Shield is damaging the Internet in Italy without actually solving the piracy problem'. The platform managed by Agcom 'is not only impacting Cloudflare, but threatens every aspect of the Internet in Italy, discouraging investment and risking the compromise of essential services that rely on the network. And all this because Agcom does not understand how the Internet works and has let private entities dictate what users can see'. It is a statement that sounds like an indictment: not against the end (fighting piracy), but against the means and governance.