To mark World Consumer Rights Day, the William Fry Technology team prepared a three‑part series on EU consumer law developments likely to shape consumer digital contracts in 2026.

Part 1 sets the scene by examining the policy direction of travel through the proposed Digital Fairness Act. This Part 2 turns to recent developments affecting the treatment of streaming platform offerings. Part 3 will consider the upcoming changes to online withdrawal rights.

The issue before the CJEU

The Austrian Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to determine whether a streaming subscription offering live broadcasts, on-demand viewing and limited offline downloads constitutes the supply of “digital content” within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU (CRD) for the purpose of withdrawal right rules. On 26 February 2026, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his Opinion (Opinion) in Case C‑234/25, Sky Österreich Fernsehen GmbH (Sky) v Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI, Austria’s Consumers’ Association).

The AG concluded that streaming platforms should be regarded as providing a “digital service” rather than supplying “digital content”. This determination is significant because a consumer’s right to withdraw from a distance contract within 14 days is treated differently depending on whether the trader supplies digital content or a digital service.

Why this is directly relevant in Ireland

This is not an “EU‑only” discussion. The CRD is implemented in Ireland through the European Union (Consumer Information, Cancellation and Other Rights) Regulations 2013 (S.I. No. 484/2013), which have applied since June 2014. Accordingly, any clarification by the CJEU on core CRD concepts, such as the boundary between “digital content” and “digital services”, feeds directly into Irish consumer facing terms, withdrawal information and cancellation journeys.

Why the “digital content” vs “digital service” label matters

The CRD grants consumers a 14‑day right to withdraw from distance and off‑premises contracts, subject to specific exceptions. The two exceptions relevant in a streaming context are:

• Digital Content Exception (Article 16(m) CRD): Where digital content not supplied on a tangible medium is provided, the withdrawal right can be waived if the consumer expressly agrees to immediate access and acknowledges that they will lose the right to withdraw once the supply of the content has begun (often framed around commencement of downloading/streaming).
• Digital Service Exception (Articles 16(a) and 16(b) CRD): For digital services, the consumer may also request immediate performance and waive the cooling‑off right, but that waiver only becomes effective once the service has been fully performed. This mechanism is narrower and operates differently from the to the one‑off digital content exception above, as it focuses on the completion of the ongoing service rather than the initiation of content supply.

The background to this case before the CJEU is that a customer ordering a Sky streaming subscription can only complete the purchase if they actively consent (by clicking) to the following contractual clause:

“When ordering a subscription: I have read and understood Sky X’s withdrawal policy. I agree that Sky will begin performing the contract before the 14-day withdrawal period expires and that I therefore lose my right of withdrawal when ordering a subscription.”

VKI argues that the withdrawal information provided to consumers is inadequate. In its view, a streaming subscription is a digital service, meaning the consumer’s withdrawal right only lapses once the service has been fully performed, and subject to the consumer acknowledging that this is the point at which the right to withdraw will be lost. Sky, by contrast, maintains that the streaming offering is digital content, with the result that the withdrawal right ends immediately once performance begins.

What did the Advocate General conclude?

In reaching his non-binding (yet persuasive) view, the AG interpreted the CRD alongside the Digital Content Directive 2019/770 (DCD) and the Omnibus Directive 2019/2161 (Omnibus Directive). Together they clarify how EU law distinguishes digital content from digital services. Recital 19 CRD lists digital content as items supplied on a one‑off basis (e.g. programmes, apps, games, music, videos, texts). In contrast, Recital 30 of the Omnibus Directive describes digital services as offerings requiring ongoing trader involvement, such as cloud storage, video and audio sharing platforms, word processing tools and social media. Drawing on these examples, the AG considered continuous trader involvement to be the decisive distinguishing factor.

He then examined Article 16(m) CRD, which, as explained above, provides a narrow withdrawal right exception for digital content once the consumer agrees to immediate supply. Since this exception limits a core consumer protection right, the AG held it must be interpreted strictly and apply only where the consumer knows precisely what content will be supplied and where that content is consumed in a single act. Since streaming platforms: (i) give users ongoing access to a dynamic catalogue; and (ii) provide a service environment which can be browsed to ascertain whether the service offered by the trader, as a whole, is suitable for the consumer, the AG held that streaming cannot fall within Article 16(m).

The AG also addressed concerns that consumers could exploit the cooling‑off period. For example, by subscribing solely to watch major sporting events and then cancelling. Here, he referred to Article 14(3) CRD, which obliges withdrawing consumers to pay a proportionate amount for the digital service already provided. That proportionate payment rule, he noted, ensures traders are compensated “for the making available of the content during the period in which the consumer had access to it.” In forming his view, the AG relied on the CJEU’s reasoning in Case C‑641/19, PE Digital (PE Digital), where the CJEU emphasised the stable and consistent economic value of subscription type services. . In the AG’s assessment, streaming platforms, do not display that characteristic rather the value lies in continuous access to a catalogue rather than a time specific benefit.

On that basis, the AG concluded that Sky’s streaming subscription does not constitute an offer of digital content for the purposes of applying the CRD’s Digital Content Exception. Rather, it is a digital service to which the normal 14‑day withdrawal right continues to apply unless and until the service is fully performed pursuant to the Digital Service Exception.

What are the potential implications for streaming and subscription services?

If the CJEU follows the AG’s reasoning, streaming and subscription providers should be aware of the following potential impacts:

Operational and legal design changes

Major operational changes may be required for platforms that currently categorise streaming as “digital content” and rely on Article 16(m) CRD to extinguish the withdrawal right from the moment streaming begins. As the AG considers streaming to be a digital service, these platforms would no longer be able to rely on the Digital Content Exemption and could face regulatory scrutiny if they continue to do so. In practical terms, this may require revisiting withdrawal notices, waiver mechanisms and onboarding flows to ensure that any waiver of rights is aligned with the digital service-based framework, under which the withdrawal right only expires once the service has been fully performed.

Billing and pro-rata charging capability

A shift to a digital service classification could also prompt a rethink of subscription models, particularly where platforms rely on free trials or introductory periods. If performance is viewed as ongoing rather than triggered by initial access to specific content, platforms may need to redesign the way free trial periods interact with the withdrawal regime and ensure that proportionate charge calculations are technically and contractually embedded.

Potential impact beyond video streaming

Importantly, the AG’s analysis was not tied to the audiovisual nature of Sky’s service. His reasoning turns on the continuous, access-based nature of the digital service, rather than the format of the content. This approach may therefore extend beyond video streaming and apply equally to other consumer facing offerings like audiobook platforms, podcast apps, online news subscriptions, music streaming services and subscription‑based e‑learning platforms, all of which involve ongoing access rather than a one‑off digital supply.

What happens next?

Although the Opinion is not binding, it raises issues of real significance for online subscription‑based business models. If the CJEU ultimately follows this approach, digital platforms (particularly streaming providers) may need to reconsider how they manage withdrawal rights, structure subscription offerings and design consumer interfaces. The forthcoming judgment will be pivotal in clarifying the legal position across the EU.

The Opinion also reflects a broader shift in EU consumer protection toward embedding rights directly into digital user journeys. Part 3 of this series looks at this development from a practical perspective, examining the upcoming amendments to the CRD that will require traders to offer a clear, user‑friendly online withdrawal function. For businesses offering digital or subscription‑based services to consumers, these operational design requirements may prove just as impactful as the legal classification questions explored in this article.

For further insights and analysis on the potential impacts of the Opinion on your consumer facing digital offerings, please contact Laura Casey, Rachel Hayes, or your usual William Fry contact.

Contributed by Eva O’Hara