Belgian authorities have widened an anti-piracy investigation by ordering several European domain companies to turn over extensive data on operators allegedly linked to illegal sports streaming services. The measures were issued by Belgium’s Department for Combating Online Infringement under rulings from the Brussels Business Court.
The demands go well beyond basic registration records. According to the court-backed requests, registrars and one registry must provide identifying information, financial details, cryptocurrency wallet data, and technical logs tied to the targeted accounts, while also remaining silent about the proceedings.
Broad data demands in court-backed orders
The requested disclosures include full names, physical addresses, telephone numbers, and payment information such as IBAN details and credit card records. The orders also seek cryptocurrency wallet addresses together with transaction hashes, extending the scope of the inquiry into digital asset activity linked to the alleged operators.
In addition, the companies are asked to hand over up to 12 months of connection logs, device-related details, and associated IP addresses. Taken together, the package would give investigators both account-level identity data and a technical record of how the services were accessed or administered.
Registrars named, but targets remain redacted
Three EU-based registrars are identified in the court decisions: Hosting Concepts, Hostinger, and Key Systems. The documents also refer to a registry that is subject to the disclosure requests.
While the enforcement action is aimed at operators said to be connected to illegal sports streaming networks, the published materials do not name the sites involved. They also redact the identities of the copyright holders behind the case, leaving key parts of the dispute undisclosed in the public record.
Silence order limits disclosure
The court measures include a gag order that prevents the affected registrars from informing account holders or the public about the proceedings. That restriction means the targets of the requests may not be notified by the service providers that hold their registration and account data.
Such a prohibition also limits outside visibility into how the requests are being handled, including whether the firms contest the scope of the disclosures or comply without challenge. The source material does not say whether any of the named companies have responded publicly.
Digital Services Act cited as legal basis
The enforcement effort references the EU Digital Services Act, indicating that Belgian authorities are relying at least in part on that framework in seeking cross-border cooperation from domain service providers based elsewhere in the European Union.
At the same time, the article notes that the cross-border application of the Digital Services Act in cases of this kind remains untested, particularly for entities outside Belgium. The next confirmed step, based on the available information, is the registrars’ handling of the court orders and whether the requested records are ultimately produced under the current legal theory.
Source: news.bitcoin.com