Federal Court of Australia

Universal Music Australia Pty Limited v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 731

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Order 1 of the orders made in these proceedings on 28 April 2017 (Orders) shall operate for a further three years from 20 April 2026.

2.    The Definition of Target Online Location as defined in the Orders is amended to remove the following Nominated Domain Names:

(a)    kat.al

(b)    kattor.xyz

(c)    kickass.cd

(d)    kickass.immunicity.date

(e)    kickass.pe

(f)    kickass.ukbypass.download

(g)    kickass.unblocked.tv

(h)    kickass.cm

(i)    kickass.onl

(j)    kat.am

(k)    kickasstorrents.pw

(l)    kickasshydra.net

3.    Telstra Limited (ACN 086 174 781) be substituted for the Fifteenth Respondent in the proceeding.

4.    Pursuant to rule 9.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules), the Sixth, Eighth, Eleventh, Twenty First, Twenty Second, Twenty Third, Twenty Fourth, Twenty Fifth, Twenty Seventh, Twenty Ninth, Thirtieth, Thirty First, Thirty Second and Thirty Fourth Respondents cease to be parties to this proceeding from the date of these orders, on the basis that they have ceased to be 'carriage service providers' within the meaning of s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).

5.    Pursuant to rule 9.08 of the Rules, the Twentieth and Twenty Sixth Respondents cease to parties to this proceeding from the date of these orders, on the basis that they are no longer related bodies corporate of the First, Second, Nineteenth, Twenty Eighth and Thirty Third Respondents.

6.    Pursuant to rule 9.05(1)(b)(i) of the Rules, Amaysim Mobile Pty Ltd (ACN 645 692 093) and Optus Satellite Pty Limited (ACN 091 790 313) be joined as parties to these proceedings as the Thirty Fifth and Thirty Sixth Respondents respectively, on the basis that they are related bodies corporate of the Third, Fourth, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Respondents and are also 'carriage service providers' within the meaning of s 115A of the Copyright Act.

7.    The name of the Fourteenth Respondent be updated from Optus Backbone Investments Pty Ltd to Optus ADSL Pty Limited, and its ACN on the court file be corrected from 136 676 356 to 138 676 356.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURLEY J:

1.    INTRODUCTION

1    These proceedings concern s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which enables an injunction to be granted against a carriage service provider (CSP) requiring it to take reasonable steps to disable access to an online location outside Australia which infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright. The applicants are the owners or exclusive licensees of the copyright in various musical works or sound recordings of popular Australian and overseas artists. The respondents are CSPs who accept that users of their services are able to obtain access to the relevant websites.

2    On 28 April 2017, I delivered judgment in these proceedings and ordered that the respondents take reasonable steps to disable access to Target Online Locations, being websites known as KickassTorrents or KAT which are accessible via a number of domain names (the 2017 Orders): Universal Music Australia Pty Limited v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 435; 348 ALR 493; 126 IPR 219.

3    Orders 10–12 of the 2017 Orders also provide a process by which the applicants may seek a variation of the injunction to include additional domain names through which the Target Online Locations may be accessed, by providing an affidavit which attests to the good faith belief of the deponent that the website accessible from the additional domain name is a new location outside Australia for the Target Online Location.

4    Since then, a number of similar proceedings, often referred to as site blocking matters, have come before the Court and parties have been granted injunctions in these: see, for example, Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390 (Halley J); Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744 (Younan J); Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 1388 (Cheeseman J); Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 246; 178 IPR 231 (Nicholas J); Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 507; 151 IPR 449 (Burley J).

5    When the first judgment in the present proceedings was published, s 115A of the Copyright Act had only recently been introduced. The 2017 Orders were expressed to operate for a period of three years from their date, expiring on 28 April 2020.

6    On 20 April 2020, I ordered that order 1 of the 2017 Orders operate for a further three years in respect of the domain name “kickass.unblocked.tv”.

7    On 21 April 2023, I ordered that order 1 of the 2017 Orders operate for a further three years, and that the definition of Target Online Locations be expanded to encompass a number of additional domain names. The additional domain names were the subject of an affidavit affirmed by a solicitor for the applicants on 4 April 2023, which observed that each of the additional domain names appeared to be substantially similar to and functionally the same as the Target Online Locations, and affirmed the solicitor’s good faith belief that the websites available from the additional domain names are new locations outside Australia for the Target Online Locations.

8    On 17 April 2026, the solicitors for the applicants emailed my chambers seeking an extension of the 2017 Orders for a further three years. The applicants also sought amendments to the 2017 Orders to remove certain domain names that no longer facilitated access to the Target Online Locations, remove respondents which were no longer CSPs, join related bodies corporate of certain respondents which were also CSPs, and to correct details of certain respondents. The applicants confirmed that other than two of the respondents who had not responded to the applicants’ communications, the balance of the respondents had consented to the proposed extension and amendments.

9    I note that the extension sought by the applicants would result in the 2017 Orders being in effect for over 10 years in total. On 24 April 2026, my associate emailed the parties indicating that I considered that it was appropriate, given the length of time the 2017 Orders have been in effect, that the applicants provide certification from a solicitor or other appropriate officer of the applicants, of the applicants’ good faith belief that the relevant Target Online Locations identified in the 2017 Orders (as varied by any subsequent orders) continue to engage in the same conduct as warranted the making of the original orders in accordance with ss 115A(1) and (5) of the Copyright Act.

10    On 22 May 2026, the applicants’ solicitors provided to my chambers a certification of their good faith belief that the relevant domain names continued to infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright, being the conduct warranting the making of the 2017 Orders. The applicants’ solicitors advised that in the process of preparing this certification, they had realised that some of the domain names were no longer active and others thought to be inactive were in fact active, and as such a revised version of the proposed orders for extension and amendment of the 2017 Orders was provided. In response to this email, I directed that the respondents be given 10 business days to raise any concerns regarding the revised proposed orders. On 5 June 2026, the applicants’ solicitors confirmed that they had not received any further comments from the respondents.

2.    THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION

11    Section 115A provides that:

Application for an injunction

(1)    The owner of a copyright may apply to the Federal Court of Australia to grant an injunction that requires a carriage service provider to take such steps as the Court considers reasonable to disable access to an online location outside Australia that:

(a)    infringes, or facilitates an infringement, of the copyright; and

(b)    has the primary purpose or the primary effect of infringing, or facilitating an infringement, of copyright (whether or not in Australia).

(2)    The application under subsection (1) may also request that the injunction require an online search engine provider (other than a provider that is covered by a declaration under subsection (8B)) to take such steps as the Court considers reasonable so as not to provide a search result that refers users to the online location.

Granting the injunction

(2A)    The Court may grant the injunction in the terms, and subject to the conditions, that the Court considers appropriate.

(2B)    Without limiting subsection (2A), the injunction may:

(a)    require the carriage service provider to take reasonable steps to do either or both of the following:

(i)    block domain names, URLs and IP addresses that provide access to the online location and that are specified in the injunction;

(ii)    block domain names, URLs and IP addresses that the carriage service provider and the owner of the copyright agree, in writing, have started to provide access to the online location after the injunction is made; and

(b)    require the online search engine provider to take reasonable steps to do either or both of the following:

(i)    not provide search results that include domain names, URLs and IP addresses that provide access to the online location and that are specified in the injunction;

(ii)    not provide search results that include domain names, URLs and IP addresses that the online search engine provider and the owner of the copyright agree, in writing, have started to provide access to the online location after the injunction is made.

Parties

(3)    The parties to an action under subsection (1) are:

(a)    the owner of the copyright; and

(b)    the carriage service provider; and

(ba)    if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider—the online search engine provider; and

(c)    the person who operates the online location if, but only if, that person makes an application to be joined as a party to the proceedings.

Service

(4)    The owner of the copyright must notify:

(a)    the carriage service provider; and

(aa)    if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider—the online search engine provider; and

(b)    the person who operates the online location;

of the making of an application under subsection (1), but the Court may dispense, on such terms as it sees fit, with the notice required to be sent under paragraph (b) if the Court is satisfied that the owner of the copyright is unable, despite reasonable efforts, to determine the identity or address of the person who operates the online location, or to send notices to that person.

Matters to be taken into account

(5)    In determining whether to grant the injunction, the Court may take the following matters into account:

(a)    the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement, as referred to in paragraph (1)(b);

(b)    whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;

(c)    whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;

(d)    whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;

(e)    whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(ea)    if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider—whether not providing search results that refer users to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(f)    the impact on any person, or class of persons, likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction;

(g)    whether it is in the public interest to disable access to the online location;

(ga)    if the application under subsection (1) also sought for the injunction to apply against an online search engine provider—whether it is in the public interest not to provide search results that refer users to the online location;

(h)    whether the owner of the copyright complied with subsection (4);

(i)    any other remedies available under this Act;

(j)    any other matter prescribed by the regulations;

(k)    any other relevant matter.

Presumption that the online location is outside Australia

(5A)    For the purposes of the proceedings, the online location is presumed to be outside Australia, unless the contrary is established.

Affidavit evidence

(6)    For the purposes of the proceedings, section 134A (affidavit evidence) applies as if the reference in paragraph 134A(f) to a particular act included a reference to a class of acts.

Rescinding and varying injunctions

(7)    The Court may:

(a)    limit the duration of; or

(b)    upon application, rescind or vary;

an injunction granted under this section.

(8)    An application under subsection (7) may be made by:

(a)    any of the persons referred to in subsection (3); or

(b)    any other person prescribed by the regulations.

(8A)    An application under subsection (7) must not request the Court to vary the injunction so that it applies to an online search engine provider that is covered by a declaration under subsection (8B).

Declarations excluding online search engine providers

(8B)    The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare that:

(a)    a particular online search engine provider; or

(b)    an online search engine provider that is a member of a particular class;

must not be specified in an application under subsection (1) or (7).

Costs

(9)    A carriage service provider or, if applicable, an online search engine provider is not liable for any costs in relation to the proceedings unless the provider enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.

(Notes omitted)

12    As I observed in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited (Extension of Orders) [2023] FCA 1167; 178 IPR 55 (Roadshow v Telstra) at [8], the purpose of s 115A is primarily to reduce the incidence of online copyright infringement. It was established to provide a powerful mechanism that enables infringing material hosted by an online target location outside of Australia to be blocked by a CSP, without the need to establish fault on the part of that provider: Second Reading Speech, Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (Cth), House of Representatives Hansard, 26 March 2015 at 3592.

13    Notably, sub-s (2B) contemplates that an order may be varied after it has been granted to block domain names, URLs and IP addresses where the CSP and the copyright owner agree in writing that those domain names, URLs or IP addresses have, since the initial grant of the injunction, “started to provide access to the online location”. This subsection was introduced pursuant to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2018 (Cth) (2018 Amendment Act). In the second reading speech to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 (Cth) (House of Representatives Hansard, 18 October 2018 at 10397), Paul Fletcher MP relevantly said of this amending legislation (as quoted in Roadshow v Telstra at [11]):

The bill will make clear that the Federal Court has the power to issue responsive and adaptive injunctions, without the need for the copyright owner to go back to the court. This will give the court the power to grant injunctions on terms that allow the copyright owner and carriage service provider, by agreement, to apply the injunction to block other pathways that start to provide access to an infringing site.

14    Subsection (7) also provides that the Court may limit the duration or, or upon application by a party, rescind or vary an injunction granted under s 115A.

15    The passage above reinforces the view, reflected in the legislation, that a streamlined approach may be taken to minimise the cost and inconvenience of obtaining extended orders. However, this will always be subject to the supervision of the Court. In order to exercise that supervision, it must be placed in a position to understand the relevant facts. In the section below I set out a regime whereby those facts are presented by a solicitor, whose obligations to the Court may be relied upon fairly and accurately to set out the position.

3.    CONSIDERATIONS IN EXTENDING AND VARYING ORDERS

16    In Roadshow v Telstra at [13]–[26], I set out a number of considerations that in my view are relevant to determining whether or not to extend or vary the terms of site blocking orders. I summarise these considerations as follows:

(1)    It will not generally be necessary for the Court to revisit the initial basis for granting the orders, unless the Court has reason to believe that the circumstances warranting the initial grant have changed: [14]–[15].

(2)    In granting an extension of the orders, the Court should be satisfied that the applicants or their solicitors have visited each of the Target Online Locations the subject of the application and, based on the results of that access, formed a good faith belief that those locations have not permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright and that each Target Domain Name, Target URL or Target IP address that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to the Target Online Location: [16]–[18].

(3)    It will not generally be necessary for the applicants to make yet further “reasonable efforts” to notify the operator of the Target Online Location of the application to vary the orders. Rather, the applicants should be required only to provide notice of the application by sending the relevant materials to any email address that the target online location indicates may be used to contact its operators. If no such email address is provided, then there is no further obligation on the part of the copyright owner: [19]–[24].

(4)    If the applicants become aware that any Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name that is a subject of the blocking order has permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to any Target Online Location, or any Target Online Location has permanently ceased to have the primary purpose of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright, the applicants must notify the CSPs so that the block can be lifted: [25].

(5)    If Target Online Locations have not permanently ceased their infringing activities after several years of the blocking orders being made, the Court may infer that these are long-term infringing operations and that, by the time of the extension application, some degree of association is likely to have formed in the minds of their users between the name or brand under which the online locations operate and the infringing content which they provide or to which they facilitate access: [26].

17    I note that in Roadshow v Telstra, I considered that the following approach to extending or varying orders might accommodate a balance between the interests of copyright owners in seeking such orders, while also serving to provide some protection to CSPs and the operators of the Target Online Locations (at [28]):

If an Applicant makes an application to extend and/or vary the period of operation of these orders:

(a)    the application must be made at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the operation of the orders by filing a minute of the orders sought together with a solicitor’s certification in accordance with (b) below;

(b)    a solicitor on behalf of the Applicant must certify that:

(i)    within the 6 weeks prior to the application, the solicitor or another representative of the Applicant has attempted to access each Target Online Location via each Target Domain Name;

(ii)    following the exercise in (b)(i) above, the solicitor has a good faith belief that each Target Online Location that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright, and that each Target Domain Name, Target URL or Target IP address that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to a Target Online Location; and

(iii)    the Applicant has given the Respondents at least 7 days’ notice of the application;

(c)    the accompanying minute of order may specify any Target Domain Names, Target URLs or Target IP addresses that are excluded from the application;

(d)    within 7 days of receiving notice of the application, any Respondent objecting to the extension of these orders must notify the Applicant and the Court in writing of the objection and the reasons therefor;

(e)    if any Respondent objects in accordance with (d) above, the proceeding will be relisted for directions, unless the Court otherwise orders;

(f)    if no Respondent gives notice of any objection, then the Court may make orders in terms of the Applicant’s minute without any further hearing;

(g)    the Applicant must serve on the Respondents any such orders made; and

(h)    the Applicant must attempt to give each relevant Target Online Location notice of the Orders made by sending an email to one email address identified by such Location as providing a means to contact its operator or administrator (if any is identified), further notifying it that it may seek to vary or set aside such Orders upon the filing of a notice of appearance with the Court and an appropriate application, supported by affidavit evidence.

18    I consider that it would be appropriate for a similar process of certification by a solicitor (or other officer of the court) to be applied to any future application for extension or variation of the 2017 Orders in these proceedings, in addition to the process set out in Orders 10–12 of the 2017 Orders for adding domain names to the injunction.

19    As I have noted above, in the present proceedings a solicitor for the applicant has given a certification of their good faith belief that a number of the domain names identified in the 2017 Orders (as varied by subsequent orders) continue to engage in the same conduct that warranted the making of the original orders in accordance with ss 115A(1) and (5) of the Copyright Act. The applicants have also provided short minutes of order for the extension and other variations sought, and have given notice to the respondents. Having regard to the content of the materials presented, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders substantially as sought by the applicants in the present proceedings.

Associate:

Dated:    12 June 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES