AdGuard DNS said it received demands to block Archive.today and related domains from an organization identifying itself as the Web Abuse Association Defense, or WAAD. The group alleged that Archive.today had failed to remove illegal material since 2023. AdGuard's published investigation questioned parts of that account while emphasizing that it had not identified who was behind the approach.
Archive.today, also known as Archive.is, stores snapshots of submitted web pages. That preservation role can keep disappearing material accessible, but it can also reproduce paywalled pages or unlawful content. Separately, the FBI served the company responsible for the site's domain registration with a subpoena in connection with an unspecified federal criminal inquiry. The supplied account did not establish whether that investigation involved copyright, child sexual abuse material or another issue.
AdGuard said the block request was unusual because a DNS provider does not host the archived pages. After messages escalated into threatened legal action, the company sought advice about France's LCEN law. Its advisers indicated that blocking might be required for users in France, according to AdGuard, although the company argued that courts should decide whether content is illegal rather than shifting that judgment to infrastructure providers.
The DNS operator then contacted Archive.today. It reported that the administrator answered within hours, removed the identified material and said no earlier notification about those URLs had arrived. AdGuard said it verified removal. The administrator also described a broader series of complaints purportedly sent by French groups to organizations capable of disrupting the archive service. These claims came from the parties involved and were not independently established in the supplied evidence.
AdGuard's review of WAAD found that the association and its website appeared around February or March 2025. Its social-media account dated to August and had four followers. The site named bodies including Europol, OFAC and the United Kingdom's NCA without providing evidence of cooperation, AdGuard said. Registration used an address associated with mass company formation, while domain ownership was hidden and email ran through ProtonMail. None of those facts alone proved misconduct.
Questions also arose around documents described as online bailiff records. Most carried August 2025 timestamps rather than 2023, while two older records had been ordered by someone other than WAAD. AdGuard later updated its article to say at least two reports were forged, but the supplied excerpt did not include independent confirmation or identify the responsible person.
The episode leaves two separate issues unresolved: how intermediaries should respond to credible reports of unlawful archived material, and whether this particular pressure campaign accurately represented its evidence and identity. AdGuard's findings support further scrutiny, not a final determination about WAAD, Archive.today or the FBI inquiry.
