US sanctions shut down Italian digital
ARTICLE 19 warns that the US designation of Italian digital service provider Autistici/Inventati as a terrorist entity violates international freedom of
The US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Italy-based digital service provider Autistici/Inventati (A/I) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on 26 August 2026. The human rights organisation ARTICLE 19 states this action against an infrastructure provider violates international freedom of expression standards and sets a dangerous precedent.
OFAC alleges A/I provided assistance to acts of terrorism by offering encrypted email, secure video streaming, and web hosting to what it calls ‘violent Antifa cells and other far-left militants across the world’. Since 2001, the collective had provided digital and privacy services to activists and social movements in various countries.
The designation legally required US persons and companies to cease all dealings with A/I. This included the US-based Public Interest Registry (PIR), which managed A/I’s ‘autistici.org’ domain. PIR suspended the domain, and on 6 September 2026, A/I announced it would shut down as a direct result. The closure impacted an estimated 16,000 mailboxes, 1,500 websites, 5,500 mailing lists, and 10,000 blogs.
| Service Type | Estimated Impact |
|---|---|
| Mailboxes | 16,000 |
| Websites | 1,500 |
| Mailing Lists | 5,500 |
| Blogs | 10,000 |
How a domain suspension silences expression
The Domain Name System (DNS) acts as the internet's address book, translating names like ‘article19.org’ into numerical addresses. Top-level domains like ‘.org’ are managed by registries such as PIR. ARTICLE 19 explains that removing a domain from the registry record makes it stop working instantly, which is what happened to autistici.org. Every webpage and email address under that domain became unreachable at once.
PIR, which manages the ‘.org’ domain used by many NGOs, argued it had no choice but to comply with the OFAC designation due to US law. The organisation stated there is no governance mechanism insulating its public interest function from such unilateral state action.
The global reach of unilateral sanctions
An SDGT designation blocks all property interests under US jurisdiction and prohibits any transactions with the designated entity by US persons or companies. Although A/I is based in Italy and served many users outside the US, its reliance on US-based companies or intermediaries exposed it to enforcement. ARTICLE 19 notes that domain registration, payment processing, and much internet naming infrastructure runs through US-incorporated entities legally obliged to act on OFAC listings.
Within a week of the designation, PIR suspended the domain, and PayPal suspended A/I’s account. Banca Etica in Italy also suspended its account while criticising the ‘use of anti-terrorism rules against dissent’. No Italian court was involved, and no court reviewed the impact on A/I’s users.
ARTICLE 19 links this case to a broader pattern documented in its research, describing tactics like seizing domains as ‘damming a river to catch a fish’. Examples include activists in India losing campaign websites, the Belarusian Association of Journalists losing its domain in exile, and Catalan referendum domains being seized ahead of the 2017 vote. What distinguishes the A/I case, the group says, is the targeting of an Italian infrastructure provider hosting sites for activists, journalists, and community groups worldwide.
Violating necessity and proportionality
International human rights law requires that any restriction on freedom of expression must meet strict tests of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. ARTICLE 19 argues that designating an entire service provider, rather than specific individuals or groups alleged to have committed acts, restricts everyone who relied on that provider without the required individual assessment.
The organisation states the action fails the necessity and proportionality test because it removes access to content wholly unrelated to the alleged conduct. Thousands of organisations lost their websites and email addresses not for their own actions, but because they used a provider that also served groups targeted by the US administration.
The designation is reportedly spreading a chilling effect. Providers across Europe are now weighing whether their clients might attract a listing, with some declining work on that basis. ARTICLE 19 warns this also undermines EU ambitions for ‘digital autonomy’ by threatening a diverse field of infrastructure providers.
ARTICLE 19 calls on the US government and others to ensure any designation leading to a domain suspension complies with international human rights law, requiring clear legal delineation and evidence-based necessity and proportionality. It urges EU states to publicly respond, clarifying that a foreign counter-terrorism listing alone is not a basis for takedowns within the EU, which should be governed by EU law and human rights standards. The group also calls on infrastructure providers to publish transparent information on their response processes, noting that under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, private actors have an independent responsibility to respect human rights beyond mere legal compliance. Finally, it advises organisations on politically contested issues to carefully consider their infrastructure provider's jurisdiction and to decentralise services and prepare migration plans to build resilience.
