Thanks to Beatrice Marsano for collaborating on this article
In a judgment of 9 July 2026 (full text accessible here) in Case C-234/25, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that subscription-based streaming services qualify as “digital services”, not “digital content”, under EU consumer rights law. In practice, this means that a clause by which a consumer waives, upfront, the 14-day right of withdrawal on subscribing to a streaming service is legally ineffective: consumers keep that right for the full statutory period, no matter what they signed at sign-up. Providers can still recoup value through proportionate compensation on withdrawal, but they can no longer rely on a waiver to bar it outright.
Background and legal framework
The dispute arose between Sky Österreich Fernsehen GmbH (“Sky”), an Austrian private broadcaster offering a streaming service, and the Verein für Konsumenteninformation (“VKI”), an Austrian consumer protection association. When subscribing online, consumers were required to accept a clause under which they consented to the service commencing before the expiry of the 14-day statutory withdrawal period and acknowledged that, as a result, they would lose their right of withdrawal.
This is in line with Article 16, Paragraph 1, let. m) of the Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, which sets out an exhaustive list of exceptions to the right of withdrawal. More specifically, let. m) disapplies the right of withdrawal for contracts concerning the supply of digital content, when the agreement provides for a payment obligation, when (i) the performance begun with the consumer’s prior express consent; and (ii) the consumer acknowledged that they would thereby lose their right of withdrawal.
The distinction between “digital content” and “digital services” is central to the application of Article 16(m) since it applies only in connection with digital content and, as will be seen, to the Court’s reasoning in this case. In the case at stake, VKI challenged Sky’s practice to exclude the withdrawal right, arguing that the streaming service constituted a “digital service” rather than “digital content”.
The judgment
The Court held that a streaming service through which a consumer can access, via a hyperlink or a digital application, digital data stored on a server in order to view them live, on demand, or offline after downloading them to the memory of their own device, does not qualify as a supply of “digital content” within the meaning of Article 16(m) of the Directive. The key criterion is the dynamic nature of the offering: where it goes beyond the mere stable and continuous provision of specific content – in particular where the catalogue is continuously updated and recommendations are personalised based on the consumer’s viewing history, playlists or favourites – the offering constitutes a “digital service”. Because Article 16(m) is an exception to consumer protection rules and must therefore be interpreted strictly, where there is doubt as to the classification of an offering, the (more consumer-friendly) withdrawal rules applicable to services apply, rather than those applicable to digital content. Consumers who subscribe to a streaming service therefore retain their right of withdrawal for the full 14-day period, regardless of any upfront waiver they may have signed.
On the risk of abuse, the Court clarified that EU law already provides an adequate remedy. Under Article 14(3) of the Directive, the trader may claim compensation upon withdrawal that is in proportion to what has been provided, calculated not only by reference to the period of access but also to the market value of the specific content made available to and viewed by the consumer — including its value when offered within the context of an on-demand service outside of any specific subscription.
