Delhi High Court blocks 30 pirate operations for HBO — and redraws who decides what gets blocked next
CS(COMM) 740/2026 grants HBO an ad-interim block across 30 rogue-site operations, then limits the dynamic extension: registrars and ISPs verify mirror identity only, rights-holders carry the affidavit — and the risk of getting it wrong.
On 27 July 2026 Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted Home Box Office and its co-plaintiffs an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against 30 “rogue website” operations in Home Box Office Inc & Ors v. Streamzy.to & Ors, CS(COMM) 740/2026 (Delhi High Court). Schedule A to the order runs to entry 139 and lists the domains behind Streamzy, KissKH, LordFlix, FMovies, YTS, MoviesMod, VegaMovies, 5MovieRulz, FilmyZilla, UHDMovies and others; twenty domain-name registrars (Dynadot, NameCheap, Tucows, Key-Systems, Porkbun, NameSilo, IONOS, Spaceship and more), nine ISPs and the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY are joined as defendants 31–61 and directed to suspend, block and notify.
The part worth reading is what happened next. Counsel for two registrars accepted they had “no hesitation” blocking the listed sites, but objected to the blanket dynamic relief sought: extending the injunction to any future mirror on the plaintiffs’ say-so would force a neutral intermediary to adjudicate. The court agreed with the principle, invoking s. 79 of the IT Act and Shreya Singhal: an ISP or registrar “is not equipped nor authorised in law” to decide what is a rogue website, and plaintiffs “cannot be permitted to assume unto themselves the authority to identify and disable websites”.
So the order splits the task (para 21). Plaintiffs who find a mirror/alphanumeric/redirect site furnish the registrar or ISP with an affidavit and supporting evidence; the intermediary then performs a purely technical verification that the domain is in fact a mirror of an enjoined defendant, and if so enforces the existing injunction as a pro-tem measure. Simultaneously the plaintiffs must file an Order I Rule 10 CPC application to implead the new site. Baseless or non-bona-fide assertions “invite appropriate orders from the court”, and the intermediary keeps liberty to come back and ask not to block. Pleadings go before the Joint Registrar on 28 October 2026.
Why it matters
Dynamic and “dynamic+” injunctions have become the standard Indian answer to whack-a-mole piracy, and the open question was never whether mirrors get blocked — it was who decides. This order answers it: the intermediary’s role is technical, the court’s role is adjudicatory, and the rights-holder’s affidavit is the operative instrument that carries the risk. It is also a map of the infrastructure: nearly every domain in Schedule A resolves to the same 104.21.x.x / 172.67.x.x Cloudflare ranges that sit in front of the clone networks in our own verticals.
What this means for you
If clone or mirror sites are your problem, build the evidence pipeline before the pleading: preserve WHOIS and DNS history, capture the redirect chain, and keep the mirror-identity proof in a form a third party can verify in minutes. Our guides on taking down a casino clone and finding the real host behind Cloudflare cover the groundwork this kind of order runs on.
- 1 Judgment, Home Box Office Inc & Ors v. Streamzy.to & Ors, CS(COMM) 740/2026, Delhi High Court (Bhambhani J.), 27 July 2026 (PDF) torrentfreak.com ↗
- 2 Information Technology Act 2000, s. 79 (intermediary safe harbour), India Code (PDF) indiacode.nic.in ↗
- 3 TorrentFreak’s write-up (via) torrentfreak.com ↗
Facing something similar? Counsel reviews every intake personally and responds within one business day, NDA-first.
Request a confidential audit