- VPN providers aren't liable for copyright infringement, said the EU Court
- The Court explicitly recognized VPNs as "lawful technical tools"
- The case centered on the copyright battle involving Anne Frank's diary
In a major victory for digital rights and common sense, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has officially categorized Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) as "lawful technical tools" while establishing new boundaries for online copyright disputes.
The landmark judgment — handed down in July 2026 — stems from a complex legal battle over the online publication of Anne Frank's historical manuscripts. At its core, the case forced Europe's top judges to answer a highly technical question: if a publisher actively tries to block visitors from a specific country, are they still breaking the law if a user sneaks past the digital border using circumvention software?
According to the CJEU, the answer is no. As long as a website employs "state-of-the-art" geo-blocking technology, the publisher cannot be held liable for copyright infringement simply because a determined reader decides to fire up the best VPN to bypass the restrictions.
The ruling sets a massive precedent. It confirms that copyright holders cannot point to the mere existence of VPNs to claim a website's security measures are completely ineffective.
More importantly for privacy advocates, the court firmly pushed back against the demonization of privacy software, cementing the legitimate status of VPN providers across the European Union.
The Anne Frank dispute explained
The legal tug-of-war began when a coalition of Dutch and Belgian academic institutions published a free, scholarly online edition of Anne Frank's manuscripts.
Because copyright laws are not fully harmonized across Europe, the legal status of the famous diary varies by territory. In Belgium and roughly 60 other countries, the writings entered the public domain years ago. However, in the Netherlands, parts of the text remain protected by copyright until 2037.
To respect this territorial divide, the publishers hosted the site in Belgium and used geo-blocking to prevent access from Dutch IP addresses. Visitors from the Netherlands were met with a notice explaining why they couldn't enter the site.
The Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the Dutch copyright, sued. They argued that because standard VPNs easily allow users to mask their true IP address and spoof a Belgian location, the scholarly website was effectively communicating the protected work to the Dutch public.
The CJEU ultimately rejected this argument. In its judgment, the court noted that while geo-blocking measures can inevitably be circumvented, "the possibility of such circumvention cannot, in itself and in all circumstances, be a decisive factor in finding those measures to be inadequate and, therefore, ineffective."
Why this matters for the internet and VPN users
For everyday internet users, the "So What?" of this ruling is deeply reassuring. It validates that using a VPN to encrypt your online traffic, hide your IP address, or bypass digital borders is a legitimate use of consumer technology.
The judges explicitly shielded VPN companies from collateral damage in piracy lawsuits, a topic that has sparked intense debate among European ISPs and rightsholders. The court specifically argued that the provider of a VPN or similar services is not liable for users bypassing restrictions.
By placing the legal burden on publishers to maintain "state-of-the-art" digital fences, rather than demanding absolute, impossible perfection, the EU has drawn a pragmatic line in the sand.
Publishers aren't expected to build unhackable walls, and VPN providers aren't responsible for the actions of users who climb over them. Ultimately, this ruling proves that the borderless internet can still coexist with territorial copyright laws, provided everyone uses the right technical safeguards.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!