Spanish Court Rejects LaLiga’s Request for Coercive Fines Against NordVPN

In February 2024 the Commercial Court No. 1 of Córdoba issued an injunction that labelled VPN providers as “technological intermediaries” and demanded that they actively block IP addresses associated with illegal LaLiga streams. The order, described as dynamic, named NordVPN and ProtonVPN specifically and was handed down without hearing the companies. LaLiga subsequently asked the court to impose coercive fines for non‑compliance. On 22 May the judge denied that request, concluding that the evidence did not show a deliberate breach of the February order.

---

What the court was asked to do

• Injunction (Feb 2024) – VPNs must block any IP address that LaLiga could prove was being used to stream matches without permission. The order was framed as a “dynamic” measure, meaning the list of addresses could change over time.
• LaLiga’s follow‑up – After weeks of partial compliance, LaLiga claimed NordVPN had not fully implemented the block and asked the court to levy daily fines until full compliance was achieved.

---

What the court actually decided

The judge declined to impose the fines, stating that the court could not determine that NordVPN had deliberately ignored the injunction. Two technical arguments presented by NordVPN were given weight:

1. Rapidly changing IPs – The addresses flagged by LaLiga turned over within hours. By the time a VPN could ingest a list and push a block, the list was already outdated, making effective compliance practically impossible.
2. Risk of overblocking – A blanket IP‑level block would have taken down thousands of legitimate services that share the same address space (e.g., Cloudflare, Vercel, GitHub, Docker). NordVPN argued that such collateral damage would violate the principle of proportionality.

The judge accepted that these concerns were “relevant” but stopped short of declaring them decisive. Instead, the ruling treated the two expert reports – LaLiga’s and NordVPN’s – as equally worthy of consideration, while reaching opposite conclusions on the factual question of compliance.

“The technical concerns are real and evidenced, and a Spanish court has now recognized that,” the NordVPN blog reads.

Limitations of the ruling

• Procedural, not substantive – The decision is a preliminary, procedural judgment. It does not resolve whether the injunction itself is enforceable, nor does it set a precedent on the legality of forcing VPNs to block IPs.
• Injunction still in force – The February order remains active. LaLiga can still demand blocks for specific IPs, and the court may revisit fines later if it finds a clear, unjustified breach.
• No public copy of the order – Both NordVPN and LaLiga declined to share the full text of the injunction, limiting external analysis of the exact technical requirements.
• Broader political context – The case has sparked debate in the Spanish parliament, leading to a non‑binding motion urging reforms to the Digital Services Law to introduce a “technological proportionality” safeguard. Until legislation changes, courts will continue to interpret the existing order on a case‑by‑case basis.

What this means for VPN users and the industry

• Operational burden – VPN operators that wish to comply must build pipelines capable of ingesting constantly changing IP lists and applying selective blocks without disrupting shared hosting services. Most providers lack such infrastructure, which is why they push back on blanket orders.
• Potential for future litigation – Even though the fines were rejected, the underlying case will proceed. If the court later finds that NordVPN (or any other VPN) ignored a specific, verifiable block, coercive penalties could be reinstated.
• Precedent for other rights‑holder actions – The ruling does not give rights‑holders a free pass to demand universal IP blocking. It signals that courts may require a technical justification for the feasibility and proportionality of any blocking order.
• Impact on overblocking – The decision highlights the collateral damage that indiscriminate IP blocking can cause. Services that rely on shared infrastructure (CDNs, cloud platforms) may cite this case when defending against similar orders in other jurisdictions.

---

Bottom line

The Córdoba court’s refusal to fine NordVPN is a narrow procedural win for the VPN provider, not a final verdict on the legality of forced IP blocking. The underlying injunction stays in place, and the broader debate over proportionality and overblocking is likely to continue both in the courts and in Spain’s legislative arena.