EU Court Recognizes VPNs as Lawful Tools
In Case C-788/24, Anne Frank Fonds, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered whether a website operator communicates a copyright-protected work to the public in a Member State where access has been geographically restricted, but users can bypass that restriction through a VPN or comparable service. The dispute concerned the online publication of scholarly editions of Anne Frank’s manuscripts from Belgium and restrictions on access from the Netherlands.
The Court confirmed that territorial copyright protection may be supported by effective geo-blocking. A website operator is not automatically liable merely because some users can evade IP-based restrictions. The Court stated that “the possibility of such circumvention cannot, in itself and in all circumstances, be a decisive factor” for finding geo-blocking measures inadequate or ineffective.
The judgment concerns the right of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive. Its practical focus is whether the operator took appropriate technical measures to prevent access from territories where authorization is required. Geo-blocking does not need to be impossible to circumvent; however, a merely symbolic or plainly ineffective restriction will not be sufficient.
The Court’s references to VPNs and similar services are important but should not be overstated. The case does not create a general exemption from copyright law for users who bypass access restrictions, nor does it decide a direct liability claim against a VPN provider. Rather, it recognizes that VPNs are lawful technical tools whose availability does not, by itself, make geo-blocking ineffective or turn a website operator’s territorial access controls into an infringement.
For rightsholders, publishers, archives, and research institutions, the decision supports a proportionate compliance approach. Where online availability is lawful only in certain territories, operators should document the territorial rights analysis, implement meaningful geo-blocking, review its effectiveness periodically, and clearly inform blocked users of the reason for the restriction. The existence of circumvention technology alone is not enough to establish that a protected work was unlawfully made available to the public in a restricted Member State.
