| Server country | Recorded outcome in our test | Company published by the host | Regime on the texts read on September 7, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iceland | 1984 Hosting: cut off at notice 1; FlokiNET: at notice 2; both refused restoration | 1984 ehf. and FlokiNET ehf (Iceland) | Copyright notice procedure repealed in 2019; Digital Services Act not applicable per a single source; a lögbann can still bar a host from hosting data |
| Romania | HostSailor: cut off at notice 6 | HOST SAILOR LIMITED (United Arab Emirates) | National duties to inform the authorities, disclose customer-identifying data on request and interrupt on an authority’s order; 24-hour authority notice in norms citing articles repealed since April 18, 2024 |
| Switzerland | PrivateAlps: cut off at notice 8, the most notices and the last of the cut-off hosts to fall | None published; declares Swiss jurisdiction | Not analysed yet |
| Finland | No server recorded there | Not applicable | Copyright-specific procedure repealed on February 17, 2024; no numeric deadline; fines for mishandling notices up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover |
| Not recorded | The 6 hosts active at the end, and five cut-off hosts whose reported country did not match the provider’s catalogue | Varies | None to attach |
What the servers with a recorded country did
The test ran from March 1, 2026 to September 1, 2026. The testers sent no notices: rights holders and their automated systems sent 80 to 100 per VPS over the full period, fewer to hosts cut off early. All four hosts with a recorded server country were cut off after copyright notices. The Icelandic servers fell at the lowest notice counts, 1984 Hosting at notice 1 and FlokiNET at notice 2, and both hosts refused to restore the service despite an offer to remove the material. The Romanian server lasted to notice 6; the Swiss one lasted to notice 8 and was the last of the nine cut-off hosts to fall.
Both Icelandic hosts publish an Icelandic company (1984 ehf., FlokiNET ehf), so the effect of the country cannot be separated from that of the company. For five other cut-off hosts, the server country reported by the testers did not match the provider’s catalogue, so it stays unrecorded. The survivors’ server countries are unrecorded too, although their catalogues include Iceland and Romania: XmrCloud centres its offer on both, and VPSDEN’s base rate is for Reykjavik. What the test measures is continuity of service, not the legal effect of the notices.
The company’s country is a separate question
HostSailor pairs its Romanian server with HOST SAILOR LIMITED, registered in the United Arab Emirates. Seven of the nine cut-off hosts publish a company country, six in all: Iceland (1984 ehf., FlokiNET ehf), the United Arab Emirates, the United States (HostHatch LLC, Florida), Costa Rica (Njalla SRL, njal.la), Moldova (AlexHost SRL) and Kyrgyzstan (Bit.Hosting). Shinjiru names an entity without a country; PrivateAlps names none and declares Swiss jurisdiction. Among the hosts active at the end, VPSDEN (Panama) and EchelonVPS (Estonia) name an entity, TLDBunker (Panama) and NimbusVPS (Seychelles) do not, and none of the four has a registration we could cross-check; TLDBunker’s commercial opening is unconfirmed.
Romania: the least favourable regime of the three we read
Of Finland, Romania and Iceland, Romania’s announced regime is the least favourable to a host, the reverse of its reputation. On top of the EU regime it kept national duties: informing the competent authorities without delay of apparently illegal activity, disclosing on request the data identifying hosting customers, and interrupting a service on an authority’s order. Its implementing norms add an authority notice within 24 hours of a complaint, but they cite articles repealed since April 18, 2024, and no source we consulted shows whether they were adapted (Legea nr. 365/2002, HG nr. 1308/2002). That is a notice to the authorities, not a removal deadline: the only numeric removal deadline in EU law is one hour, for terrorist content after an authority’s order.
Iceland and Finland: repealed procedures, court-based constraints
Iceland repealed its copyright notice procedure in 2019 (Lög nr. 54/2019). According to a single source, the Icelandic foreign ministry’s EU affairs database consulted on September 7, 2026, the Digital Services Act does not apply there: no notice-mechanism duty, no coordinator, no capped fine. The constraint is judicial: a lögbann, an interim prohibition enforced by the district commissioner, can bar a host from hosting data whether or not it bears any responsibility. The Icelandic reputation rests on a 2010 parliamentary resolution with no rule on hosting.
Finland repealed its copyright-specific procedure on February 17, 2024. No numeric deadline remains, only a duty to act promptly; compelled removals go through the courts, including interim orders that can be issued urgently without hearing the alleged infringer. The administrative fine for mishandling notices, up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover, needs no court decision. We verified no published decision applying those orders to a host.
Frequently asked questions
Which country is best for offshore hosting?
Our test does not name one: every server with a recorded country was cut off, in Iceland at notices 1 and 2, in Romania at notice 6 and in Switzerland at notice 8. The 6 hosts active at the end have no recorded server country. On paper, Romania is the least favourable of the three countries whose law we analysed.
Is Iceland good for DMCA-ignored hosting?
Not on our record. The two servers confirmed in Iceland, at 1984 Hosting and FlokiNET, were cut off at copyright notices 1 and 2, and both hosts refused to restore the service. Iceland has had no copyright notice procedure since 2019 and, per a single source, does not apply the Digital Services Act, but a lögbann can still target a host.
Is Romania a DMCA-friendly country for hosting?
On paper it is the least friendly of the three countries we analysed: Romania kept national duties to inform the authorities, disclose customer-identifying data and interrupt a service on an authority’s order, plus a 24-hour authority notice in norms citing articles repealed since April 18, 2024. In our test, HostSailor’s Romanian server was cut off at notice 6.
Is Switzerland safe for offshore hosting?
One Swiss server was in our test: PrivateAlps, which declares Swiss jurisdiction without publishing a legal entity. It absorbed more notices than any other cut-off host (8), then was suspended with no refund for the remaining months. One case is not a rule, and our legal analysis of Switzerland is not done yet.
Does the company’s country matter more than the server’s?
The test cannot separate them, because both Icelandic servers belonged to hosts that publish an Icelandic company. It does show they often differ: HostSailor pairs a Romanian server with a UAE company. The Digital Services Act applies wherever a service is offered in the Union, whatever the provider’s establishment, and server location alone determines neither the applicable law nor the competent authority.