Illegal Streaming & the Law: What the High Court’s Latest Order Means for You

If you’ve ever been tempted to watch Premier League football through a modified Fire Stick, a “dodgy box”, or an IPTV subscription that costs a few pounds a month, a landmark High Court order handed down in March should give you serious pause. The message from the courts, from Sky, and from the Premier League is unambiguous: illegal streaming is no longer a victimless grey area — it is a matter for civil claims, criminal prosecution, and now, the targeted exposure of individual users’ identities.

Historically we have advised businesses and individuals on intellectual property law on issues such as Napster, P2P, and illegal downloads. In this article we explain exactly what has happened, what legal mechanisms are being used, and — critically — what the risks are for those on every rung of the illegal streaming ladder, from the seller of a jailbroken device right through to the fan watching at home.

What Has the High Court Actually Ordered?

The most significant recent development concerns a Norwich Pharmacal Order obtained by Sky before the Irish High Court. The order compels Revolut, the digital banking platform, to hand over the names, addresses, and identifying information of over 300 individuals who paid for access to an illegal IPTV streaming service called “IPTV is Easy”, operated by David Dunbar of Co. Wexford.

The action arose from Sky’s civil investigation into Dunbar, who had previously been identified as a provider of copyright-infringing IPTV services. Sky’s barrister told the court that the information — to be supplied via an encrypted spreadsheet within 28 days — would be used to pursue legal action against five key resellers and, selectively, against some end users. While Sky acknowledged it would not be practicable to sue all 304 subscribers, the clear implication is that no user of an illegal service can consider themselves safe simply because of the numbers involved.

Sky was supported in its application by a coalition of content providers, including Premier Sports, GAA+, LOITV and Clubber TV, underscoring that the enforcement effort extends well beyond Premier League football. The timing is deliberate: Sky’s investigator noted in an affidavit that levels of infringement peak towards the end of the football season, when the Premier League run-in, Formula 1 races, and major golf tournaments make illicit services most attractive.

The Legal Framework: Copyright, Fraud and the CDPA

Illegal streaming in the United Kingdom engages several overlapping areas of law, and it is important to understand that the legal exposure is not uniform — it depends on where in the chain of infringement a person sits.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). The CDPA is the cornerstone of UK intellectual property law. Broadcasting rights in Premier League footage vest as a form of copyright. Anyone who communicates, distributes, or authorises the communication of a copyrighted work to the public without the rights-holder’s consent infringes those rights. Under section 107, criminal liability arises where infringement is carried out “in the course of a business””,” or where it is sufficiently serious to have a significant commercial impact. The maximum sentence under the CDPA for online copyright infringement – increased by the Digital Economy Act 2017 – is ten years’ imprisonment.

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). For civil claims—including claims against end users—the IPEC provides a cost-capped forum with a maximum damages award of £500,000 and a costs cap of £60,000. A business owner who shows illegal streams on their premises, or a user who subscribes to an illicit IPTV service, could find themselves facing IPEC proceedings, with the potential to pay the other side’s legal costs in addition to any compensation awarded.

Operation Eider and the Wider Enforcement Landscape

The High Court order does not stand alone. It is part of a broad, coordinated enforcement campaign that has been building momentum across the United Kingdom and Ireland for several years.

Operation Eider, led by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), identified 14 cases for investigation on 14 November 2025. In the opening week of 2026, FACT published a full list of targeted regions: London; the South West, North West, North East, Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire and Humber; and the West Midlands. The Premier League has separately obtained High Court orders requiring internet service providers to block the IP addresses of servers hosting illegal streams — a “live blocking” mechanism that activates during match broadcasts.

In Ireland, the Football Association Premier League has renewed its blocking order for the 2025/26 and 2026/27 seasons. Justice Mark Sanfey of the Commercial Court approved the application in July 2025, compelling Eir, Virgin Media Ireland, Sky Ireland, and Vodafone to block relevant IP addresses. Sky’s evidence demonstrated that the proportion of illegal streams disrupted by the existing order was already “very significant”.

Amazon has also faced growing broadcaster pressure. In October 2025, it announced changes to how future Fire Stick devices are manufactured, with the aim of making it harder to “jailbreak” the devices to access unauthorised content. It is estimated that over half of all illegal Premier League streamers use Fire Stick or similar devices.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

Business owners — whether running a pub, a sports bar, a gym, a hotel, or any venue where people gather — face a particularly acute risk. Showing a Premier League match via an illegal IPTV feed in a commercial setting constitutes a public performance of a copyright work, which is an act restricted by the rights-holder under section 19 of the CDPA. It is irrelevant that the business owner did not set up the illegal service themselves; the act of showing it in public is the infringement.

FACT and the Premier League both operate active intelligence units that monitor premises – including via tip-offs through a partnership with Crimestoppers. The Premier League has stated publicly that it investigates and prosecutes at every level, and the courts have consistently imposed custodial sentences that reflect the seriousness with which copyright theft is treated.

What Does This Mean for Individual Consumers?

Many people still assume that watching an illegal stream at home is a de minimis risk: surely the authorities will focus on the sellers, not the viewers? The Norwich Pharmacal Order obtained by Sky directly challenges that assumption. While Sky’s barrister acknowledged that proceedings against all 304 identified users would not be practicable, the order was obtained precisely to enable selective enforcement. Rights-holders have already demonstrated a willingness to pursue end users in civil proceedings.

There is also the question of what it means to be identified. Even if Sky does not immediately issue a claim, having your name and address on an encrypted spreadsheet in the possession of a major broadcaster’s legal team is not a comfortable position. The data could be used at any point within the applicable limitation period — six years for a civil claim in most cases.

The FACT chief executive, Kieron Sharp, has stated publicly that cease-and-desist warnings are not simply advisory — they are the first step towards holding offenders accountable. For consumers, the practical message is straightforward: the cost of a legitimate Sky Sports, TNT Sports, or Amazon Prime subscription is modest compared to the cost of defending civil proceedings or facing criminal investigation.

The IP Architecture Behind the Enforcement

From an intellectual property perspective, the enforcement mechanisms deployed in these cases are a sophisticated combination of civil and criminal tools, and it is worth understanding why they are so effective.

The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is particularly powerful because it side-steps the conventional difficulty of identifying anonymous wrongdoers online. A rights-holder does not need to have sued the primary infringer, or even to have identified them, before obtaining an NPO against a third-party data-holder such as a payment processor or internet service provider. The threshold is simply that the third party has become “innocently mixed up” in the wrongdoing — Revolut, by processing subscription payments, satisfied that test.

Live blocking orders, requiring ISPs to block specific IP addresses in real time during live broadcasts, represent a further innovation. Rather than pursuing infringers after the event, they disrupt the infringement at the moment it occurs. The Premier League’s evidence before the Irish courts showed this mechanism to be highly effective at reducing the volume of illegal streams.

Taken together, these tools create a layered enforcement architecture: criminal prosecution for the most serious commercial operators; civil IPEC proceedings for mid-tier resellers; Norwich Pharmacal Orders to expose the subscriber base; and live blocking to disrupt the experience in real time. There is no comfortable gap for users to occupy.

How Lawdit Solicitors Can Help

Whether you are a business owner who has received a cease-and-desist notice, a landlord concerned about a tenant’s activities on your premises, or an individual who has been contacted by a rights-holder’s solicitors, Lawdit Solicitors has the intellectual property expertise to advise you.

We can advise on the scope of any civil claim, the strength of a rights-holder’s position, and the realistic range of outcomes — including whether an early settlement is in your interests. We also advise rights-holders, content creators, and broadcasters on the enforcement tools available to them, including Norwich Pharmacal applications, IPEC proceedings, and criminal referrals.

Intellectual property law is at the heart of what we do. Founded in 2001, Lawdit Solicitors combines deep technical legal knowledge with practical commercial advice, and our team of solicitors, trainees, and paralegals is ready to help you navigate a landscape that is changing quickly.