The subscription that goes dark on holiday: the written walkthrough

Myth · Catalogues are national, everybody knows that: abroad, it is the local catalogue or nothing.

The myth: “catalogues stop at borders” It used to be true, and it is precisely what the 2017 Regulation changed for PAID subscriptions during temporary stays. The official page of the Union says it without nuance: you have the right to access your paid online content services in the same way as at home, films and series included, and the rule covers e-books, games, music and sport.

“When you travel to another EU country, you have the right to access your paid-for online content services in the same way as you would in your home country. […] The same rules apply to all your paid subscriptions for other online content, such as e-books, games, music and sports events.”

In plain words: when travelling in the Union, your paid subscription follows you, whatever the type of content. The “local catalogue or nothing” reflex is ten years out of date.

Myth · 3 € a month is nothing: I take the option and the peace of mind with it.

The myth: “a small reasonable surcharge is fair game” The amount is not the question: the additional charge itself is forbidden. The text does not say “a reasonable surcharge”, it says no additional charges for access and use during a temporary stay. Paying three euros for a free right is establishing with your own money that you do not know it.

“The provider shall not impose any additional charges on the subscriber for the access to and the use of the online content service pursuant to paragraph 1.”

In plain words: the option's price hardly matters, its very existence contradicts the Regulation. You do not haggle over a right you already own.

Myth · Abroad they are allowed to throttle the quality anyway: might as well pay for high definition.

The myth: “degraded quality abroad is the rule” The text separates two things. The provider is not bound to guarantee abroad the quality promised at home, unless expressly agreed; but it is FORBIDDEN from taking any action to reduce the quality of delivery. If the picture drops, the cause must be your connection, never a tap they are tightening. Deliberate throttling gets disputed, not bought off.

“The provider shall not take any action to reduce the quality of delivery of the online content service when providing the online content service in accordance with paragraph 1.”

In plain words: deliberately throttling quality while you travel is forbidden. What can change is your network's bandwidth, not their goodwill.

Myth · Copyright is sacred: if their licences are national, their hands are tied.

The myth: “territorial licences win” The argument would have held without Article 4, but Article 4 exists: use during a temporary stay is deemed to occur in your Member State of residence. Their national licence is therefore never breached by your trip. A provider invoking its studios against your portability is citing a problem the Regulation already solved for it.

“The provision of an online content service under this Regulation to a subscriber who is temporarily present in a Member State, as well as the access to and the use of that service by the subscriber, shall be deemed to occur solely in the subscriber's Member State of residence.”

In plain words: the law moved your screen home, precisely so that national licences would stop being an obstacle. Their argument is seven years out of date.

Myth · Two weeks a year is in the terms I accepted: beyond that, they can cut me off.

The myth: “the day limit is in the contract, so it holds” The Regulation saw exactly this clause coming, and disarmed it in advance: any contractual provisions contrary to the Regulation are unenforceable, including those which prohibit portability or LIMIT IT TO A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD. The text sets no number of days, in either direction: what matters is that your presence elsewhere is temporary and your residence stays home.

“Any contractual provisions, including those between providers of online content services and holders of copyright or related rights or those holding any other rights in the content of online content services, as well as those between such providers and their subscribers, which are contrary to this Regulation, including those which prohibit cross-border portability of online content services or limit such portability to a specific time period, shall be unenforceable.”

In plain words: a “two weeks a year” clause is unenforceable, the text's own word. No day quota exists in the Regulation, neither for them nor against you.

Myth · It is their platform, they verify however they like: I send the six documents.

The myth: “their house, their rules” Verification is not left to their imagination: the Regulation lists the admissible means and caps their use at two, reasonable, proportionate and effective. The list runs from the identity document to the internet contract; a tax assessment plus a full dossier looks like none of it. Answering within the text's frame protects your series AND your data.

“the provider shall verify the Member State of residence of the subscriber by using not more than two of the following means of verification and shall ensure that the means used are reasonable, proportionate and effective:”

In plain words: on this point, the Regulation sets the rules of their house. Two means from the list, not an inventory.

Myth · I refuse any verification: my word must be enough, that is the very principle of law.

The myth: “no verification is owed” The limit cuts both ways, and that is what makes it solid: the provider is entitled to request the information necessary to determine your residence, within the Regulation's bounded frame. If you do not provide it and verification becomes impossible, it no longer owes you portability. Refusing two reasonable documents is closing, yourself, the door the text had opened.

“3. The provider shall be entitled to request the subscriber to provide the information necessary to determine the subscriber's Member State of residence in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2. If the subscriber fails to provide that information, and as a result the provider is unable to verify the subscriber's Member State of residence, the provider shall not, on the basis of this Regulation, enable the subscriber to access or use the online content service when the subscriber is temporarily present in a Member State.”

In plain words: two reasonable means, you owe them; six documents, you do not. The right lives exactly between those two refusals.

Myth · Free or paid, same fight: I put the catch-up app on formal notice too.

The myth: “portability covers everything on a screen” The official page of the Union states the distinction plainly: the rules can also cover free subscriptions, but on an OPTIONAL basis; access to your free online content services abroad depends on your provider. A legal claim against a choice the text leaves to them cannot succeed. Checking the regime before writing is half the file.

“EU rules also cover free subscriptions to online content when you travel to another EU country, but on an optional basis. This means that access to your free online content services when you're abroad depends on your service provider.”

In plain words: for free services, the Regulation proposes, the provider disposes. Your legal lever lives on the paid side.

Myth · Complaining against a platform never gets anywhere anyway: too big, too far, too technical.

The myth: “complaining never works” The official page of the Union publishes the textbook case: a Belgian student gone to Spain for three months, blocked by her music service on the ground that she “no longer lived in Belgium”. She complained, the provider checked her residence, found her stay was only temporary, and FULLY restored her access. Three months abroad, and the right held: your two-month placement is an even simpler case.

“Sarah complained to the provider and they checked her place of residence. They realised that she was still a Belgian resident as her stay abroad was only temporary, and gave her back full access to the music streaming service.”

In plain words: the complaint is the normal mechanism, and the official example ends with access fully restored. Fatalism has no source.