Federal Court of Australia

Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v Telstra Limited [2026] FCA 899

ORDERS

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

In these orders, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) Aussie Broadband means the Forty-First Respondent.

(b) DNS Blocking means a system by which any user of a Respondent's service who attempts to use a DNS resolver that is operated by or on behalf of that Respondent to access an Odyssey Target Online Location is prevented from receiving a DNS response other than a redirection as referred to in Order 7.

(c) Domain Name means a name formed by the rules and procedures of the Domain Name System (DNS) and includes subdomains.

(d) IP Address means an Internet Protocol address.

(e) Optus means the Second to Eighth Respondents.

(f) Superloop means the Forty-Second to Forty-Seventh Respondents.

(g) Odyssey Target Online Locations means the online locations referred to in Schedule A that are or were accessible:

(i) at the URLs listed in Schedule A to these Orders (together, the Odyssey Target URLs);

(ii) at the IP Addresses listed in Schedule A to these Orders (together, the Odyssey Target IP Addresses);

(iii) at the Domain Names listed in Schedule A to these Orders (together, the Odyssey Target Domain Names); and

(iv) any other domain names, URLs and IP addresses that the Applicants notify to the Respondents pursuant to Order 15 (subject to the procedure set out in that Order).

(h) Telstra means the First Respondent.

(i) TPG Telecom means the Twenty-Second to Fortieth Respondents.

(j) Universal means the First Applicant.

(k) URL means a Uniform Resource Locator.

(l) Vocus means the Ninth to Twenty-First Respondents.

The court orders that:

1. Leave be granted for the Applicants to file an amended interlocutory application in the form sent to the Associate to Justice Stellios on 9 July 2026 by 6.00pm on 9 July 2026.

2. The Applicants are to serve a sealed copy of these Orders on the Respondents by 6.00pm on 9 July 2026.

Disabling access to Odyssey Target Online Locations

3. Until further order, Telstra, Optus, Vocus, Aussie Broadband and Superloop must, by 4pm on 13 July 2026, take reasonable steps to disable access to the Odyssey Target Online Locations.

4. Until further order, TPG Telecom must, by 5pm on 15 July 2026, take reasonable steps to disable access to the Odyssey Target Online Locations.

5. Each of Orders 3 and 4 is taken to have been complied with by a Respondent if that Respondent implements any one or more of the following steps:

(a) DNS Blocking in respect of the Odyssey Target Domain Names;

(b) IP Address blocking or re-routing in respect of the Odyssey Target IP Addresses;

(c) URL blocking in respect of the Odyssey Target URLs and the Odyssey Target Domain Names; or

(d) any alternative technical means for disabling access to the Odyssey Target Online Locations as agreed in writing between the Applicants and a Respondent.

6. If a Respondent in complying with Order 3 or 4 does not implement any of the steps referred to in Order 5, that Respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these Orders, notify the Applicants of the step or steps it has implemented.

Redirection of users

7. Each Respondent must use reasonable efforts to redirect any communication by a user of its service seeking access to an Odyssey Target Online Location which has been disabled pursuant to Order 3 or 4 to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by either:

(a) the Applicants, or their nominee, pursuant to Order 8; or

(b) that Respondent or its nominee.

The Applicants' obligations pursuant to Orders 8 and 9 only arise if a Respondent notifies the Applicants that the Respondent will redirect a communication pursuant to Order 7(a) and for so long as at least one Respondent redirects communications to that webpage.

8. The Applicants, or their nominee, must establish, maintain and host a webpage which informs users of a Respondent's service who have been redirected to the webpage pursuant to Order 7 that access to the website has been disabled by order of this Court.

9. Within 5 business days of these Orders, the Applicants will notify each of the Respondents in writing of the URL of the webpage established, maintained and hosted under Order 7(a) and, if the webpage ceases to operate for any reason, will notify each of the Respondents in writing of a different URL that complies with Order 8.

10. If, in complying with Order 7(b), a Respondent redirects any communication by a user of its service to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by it, that Respondent or its nominee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that the webpage informs the user of that Respondent's service that access to that website has been disabled by order of this Court.

Permanent cessation of enabling or facilitating access or having the requisite primary purpose or primary effect

11. In the event that any of the Applicants has a good faith belief that:

(a) any Odyssey Target URL, Odyssey Target IP Address or Odyssey Target Domain Name which is subject to these Orders has permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to any Odyssey Target Online Location; or

(b) any Odyssey Target URL, Odyssey Target IP Address or Odyssey Target Domain Name has permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright,

a representative of the Applicants must, within 15 business days of any of the Applicants forming such a good faith belief, notify each Respondent of that fact in writing, in which case the Respondents shall no longer be required to take steps pursuant to Order 3 or 4 to disable access to the relevant Odyssey Target URL, Odyssey Target IP Address or Odyssey Target Domain Name that is the subject of the notice.

Temporarily declining or ceasing to prevent access

12. A Respondent will not be in breach of Order 3 or 4 if it temporarily declines or temporarily ceases to take the steps ordered in Order 3 or 4 (either in whole or in part) upon forming the view, on reasonable grounds, that suspension is necessary to:

(a) maintain the integrity of its network or systems or functioning of its blocking system;

(b) upgrade, troubleshoot or maintain its blocking system;

(c) avert or respond to an imminent security threat to its network or systems; or

(d) ensure its ability to block access to online locations associated with criminal content or its ability to comply with its statutory obligations, including under s 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), is not impaired,

provided that:

(e) unless precluded by law, it notifies the Applicants or their legal representative(s) of such suspension, including the reasons and the expected duration of such suspension, by 5.00 pm on the next business day; and

(f) such suspension lasts no longer than is reasonably necessary and, in any case, no longer than 3 business days or such period as the Applicants may agree in writing or the Court may allow.

Leave to apply

13. The owner or operator of any Odyssey Target Online Location and the owner or operator of any website who claims to be affected by these Orders may apply on 3 days' written notice to the Court and all parties to this proceeding, to vary or discharge these Orders, with any such application to:

(a) set out the orders sought by the owner or operator of the Odyssey Target Online Location or affected website; and

(b) be supported by evidence as to:

(i) the status of the owner or operator of the Odyssey Target Online Location or affected website; and

(ii) the basis upon which the variation or discharge is sought.

14. The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days' written notice, including for the purpose of any application:

(a) for further orders to give effect to the terms of these Orders; and/or

(b) for further orders in the event of any material change of circumstances including, without limitation, in respect of the consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the technical methods under Order 5.

Odyssey Target Online Locations accessible from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL (new access means order)

15. If the Applicants and their solicitor form a good faith belief that a website the subject of any of the Odyssey Target Online Locations is at any time during the operation of these Orders provided from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL outside Australia:

(a) the Applicants may, by their solicitor, file and serve a notice in writing to the Respondents and the Court that:

(i) identifies the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL; and

(ii) certifies that, in the good faith belief of the Applicants and their solicitor, the website operated from the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL is a new access means for any of the Odyssey Target Online Locations the subject of these Orders, and provides brief reasons therefor;

(b) within 7 business days of the notice given pursuant to Order 15(a), the Respondents must notify the Applicants and the Court in writing if they object to taking steps pursuant to Order 3 or 4 (but within 15 business days) to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 15(a);

(c) if any Respondent objects to disabling a Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 15(a), or the Court otherwise considers it appropriate to do so, the proceeding will be relisted for further directions; and

(d) if, within the time period specified in Order 15(b), no Respondent objects to disabling access to any Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 15(a) and the Court does not otherwise require the proceeding to be relisted, then upon receipt of a notification from the Applicants that the Court does not require the matter to be relisted, that Respondents must take steps pursuant to Order 3 or 4 (but within 15 business days) to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 15(a).

Costs

16. The Applicants pay Telstra's, Optus', Vocus', TPG Telecom's, Aussie Broadband's and Superloop’s compliance costs calculated at the rate of $50 per Odyssey Target Domain Name the subject of DNS Blocking undertaken for the purposes of complying with Order 3 or 4.

Notices

17. Any Respondent that has not already done so must file and serve a notice of address for service or submitting notice by 5.00pm on 16 July 2026.

SCHEDULE A – ODYSSEY TARGET ONLINE LOCATIONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STELLIOS J:

1 This urgent application for interlocutory relief came before me as duty judge. In the substantive proceeding, the applicants seek orders requiring the respondents to block access to “pirate” target online locations (TOLs). It is alleged that the TOLs in question infringe or facilitate the infringement of the applicants’ copyright in cinematograph films.

2 The urgent relief sought relates to 32 TOLs that foreshadow the availability for accessing the upcoming film, “The Odyssey” (Odyssey TOLs), which is due for release in Australia on 16 July 2026 and in France on 15 July 2026, with the remaining worldwide release scheduled for 17 July 2026.

3 The respondents are internet service providers. They are on notice of the originating application, the interlocutory application and that the interlocutory application was listed to be heard by me on 9 July 2026. While none of the respondents appeared at the hearing of the interlocutory application, they have indicated either consent or no opposition to the proposed orders (or orders in materially the same form as the proposed orders).

4 I am satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken by the applicants to contact the owners or operators of the Odyssey TOLs and to provide them with information about the hearing today of the interlocutory application. Those efforts for the most part received automatic responses. I accept the evidence that none of the owners or operators of the Odyssey TOLs have engaged in any meaningful way with the applicants’ efforts.

5 In support of the interlocutory application, the applicants relied on the following evidence:

(1) Affidavits of Andrew Gavin Stewart, solicitor for the applicants, dated 1 and 9 July 2026; and

(2) Affidavits of Jackson Ion Moir, a paralegal acting under the supervision of Mr Stewart, dated 1 and 8 July 2026.

6 The applicants also tendered certain videos on a USB device and correspondence with the respondents, which were admitted into evidence.

7 The principles for interlocutory relief are well settled. The applicants must show a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in their favour.

8 The substantive proceeding seeks an order under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). That section relevantly provides:

115A Injunctions relating to online locations outside Australia

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).

…

Granting the injunction

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

Note 1:     For the matters that the Court may take into account when determining whether to grant the injunction, see subsection (5).

Note 2:     The terms and conditions of the injunction that apply to a carriage service provider under subsection (1) may be different from those that apply to an online search engine provider under subsection (2).

(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.

…

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.

9 I am satisfied that the applicants have established, on a prima facie basis, that:

(1) The applicants are owners of the copyright in The Odyssey and other films that can be accessed on the Odyssey TOLs;

(2) The respondents are “carriage service providers”, an expression which is defined in the Copyright Act to have the same meaning as it has in s 87 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth);

(3) Relying on the presumption in s 115A(5A), the Odyssey TOLs are an “online location outside Australia”;

(4) The Odyssey TOLs are streaming services that are poised to allow access to The Odyssey upon its release;

(5) The applicants have not granted any licence or consent to the owners or operators of the Odyssey TOLs to copy or communicate the films in relation to which the applicants own copyright;

(6) The Odyssey TOLs operate in a flagrant manner to obscure the nature of their operation. They offer access to a catalogue of films (including those in relation to which the applicants own copyright) and television programs without charge and almost all have advertising;

(7) Consequently, there is a prima facie case that:

(a) if the proposed orders are not made, the Odyssey TOLs will infringe or facilitate the infringement of the applicants’ copyright in The Odyssey; and

(b) the Odyssey TOLs have the primary purpose or the primary effect of infringing, or facilitating an infringement of copyright (including copyright owned by the applicants).

10 Accordingly, the applicants have made out a prima facie case for relief under s 115A of the Copyright Act.

11 Given the location of the Odyssey TOLs outside Australia, and the nature of their operation, I am also satisfied that the applicants have made out a prima facie case that the proposed orders are appropriate for the purpose of disabling access and that disabling access is a proportionate response to the prospective copyright infringement. Further, the orders sought are in substantially the same form as the orders made in other cases, including by Halley J in Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390. The changes between the orders made by Halley J and the proposed orders in this case are immaterial.

12 Finally, the balance of convenience favours the making of the proposed orders:

(1) The evidence supports the inference that there will be a detrimental financial impact on the applicants if The Odyssey could be streamed for free from the Odyssey TOLs. That loss cannot easily be recovered from the Odyssey TOLs given the nature of their operations outside Australia.

(2) None of the respondents oppose the proposed orders (or proposed orders that were provided in materially the same terms).

(3) Even if it is legitimate to take account of the interests of the Odyssey TOLs, those interests are outweighed by the adverse impact on the applicants’ interests.

(4) The interlocutory application was not brought before the Court until 1 July 2026. However, it was explained in evidence, an explanation I accept, that the timing of the application was due to the nature of pirate websites. If the interlocutory application had been brought earlier, the Odyssey TOLs would likely have changed or moved by the time of the hearing. Hence, the interlocutory application was filed as close as possible to the release date.

13 For the foregoing reasons, I make the orders sought.

Associate:

Dated:    9 July 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES