CJEU Rules VPNs Are Lawful Tools in Anne Frank Case

A Copyright Dispute Over Anne Frank's Diary Becomes a VPN Landmark

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a ruling that reaches well beyond the specifics of a single copyright dispute. In a case brought by the Anne Frank Fonds, the foundation that holds rights to Anne Frank's diary, the court found that VPNs are 'lawful technical tools' and that publishers and VPN providers cannot be held liable simply because a user chooses to bypass geographic restrictions with one.

The case centered on the copyright status of Anne Frank's diary, which is in the public domain in some EU member states but still protected in others due to differing national copyright terms. A publisher had made the text available online with geo-blocking in place, restricting access based on a visitor's location. The Anne Frank Fonds argued that this wasn't good enough, since anyone using a VPN could simply spoof their location and access the text regardless of where they were actually located.

What the Court Actually Decided

According to the CJEU, a work that is in the public domain in certain member states can be published freely online, as long as reasonable geo-blocking measures are used to restrict access in countries where copyright protections still apply. Crucially, the court said publishers are not obligated to implement anything more sophisticated than standard IP-based geo-blocking. They don't need to build systems capable of detecting or blocking VPN traffic specifically.

That distinction matters enormously. It means the legal responsibility stops at reasonable technical measures, not at closing every possible workaround a determined user might find. The court explicitly framed VPNs as legitimate technology with legitimate uses, rather than tools whose mere existence undermines a rights holder's protections. If a user employs a VPN to get around geo-blocking, that's a matter between the user and the law in their own jurisdiction, not evidence that the publisher or the VPN provider did something wrong.

Why This Is a Meaningful Privacy Win

VPNs have spent the last several years under increasing scrutiny across parts of Europe and beyond. The UK's Online Safety Act, introduced in 2023, requires certain sites to implement age verification checks to keep minors away from content deemed harmful. VPNs are one of the more obvious ways people get around those checks, and the UK government has at points floated the idea of restricting VPN use altogether as a response.

Against that backdrop, a ruling from the EU's highest court affirming that VPNs are lawful technical tools, and that their providers aren't liable for how individual users choose to use them, is a notable counterweight. It reinforces a principle that privacy advocates have long argued: the technology itself is neutral. A VPN can be used to access geo-restricted content, protect data on public Wi-Fi, or simply keep browsing habits private from an internet provider. None of those uses should automatically be treated as suspect.

This comes at a time when other parts of the EU are moving in the opposite direction on digital privacy. Germany, for example, recently mandated IP address logging for all citizens, requiring internet service providers to retain everyone's IP address data for a minimum of three months. That kind of policy sits in real tension with a ruling that treats VPN use as a normal, lawful activity. The CJEU decision doesn't roll back logging mandates or surveillance-adjacent laws, but it does draw a legal line that keeps VPN providers themselves out of the crosshairs, even as other forms of data retention expand.

What This Means For You

If you use a VPN, whether for streaming content, general privacy, or getting around regional restrictions, this ruling doesn't change how your VPN works day to day. What it does is reinforce, at the highest EU judicial level, that VPNs are legitimate tools and that providers aren't going to be dragged into liability simply because some users route around geo-blocks. For VPN companies operating in or serving the EU market, it's a meaningful piece of legal clarity in an environment where the legal status of their product has often been treated as ambiguous or politically fraught.

It's worth remembering that this ruling addresses provider liability for copyright purposes specifically. It doesn't override national laws in individual member states, and it doesn't touch on unrelated issues like age verification requirements or content-specific regulations that some countries are still actively debating. The broader European regulatory picture around VPNs, data retention, and online privacy remains a patchwork, and it's still evolving.

Key Takeaways

• The CJEU ruled that VPNs are lawful technical tools, and providers aren't liable when users use them to bypass geo-blocking.
• Publishers relying on geo-blocking only need to implement standard IP-based restrictions, not VPN-detection systems.
• The ruling arrives amid growing scrutiny of VPNs tied to laws like the UK's Online Safety Act.
• It stands in contrast to expanding data retention rules elsewhere in the EU, including Germany's new IP logging mandate.
• Users should still be aware that using a VPN to access geo-restricted content may carry separate legal or contractual implications depending on their own jurisdiction and the service in question.

This ruling won't settle every debate over VPN regulation in Europe, but it establishes an important baseline: VPNs are recognized as legitimate technology under EU law, not tools that automatically expose providers to liability. For anyone following the ongoing tension between digital privacy and regulatory oversight, it's a decision worth watching as similar cases and legislation continue to unfold across the bloc.