In a decision that privacy advocates are already hailing as a major victory, the European Union’s highest court has declared virtual private networks to be lawful technical instruments. The ruling came in a long-running dispute over the online publication of scholarly editions related to Anne Frank’s writings. And it carries implications that stretch far beyond any single copyright battle.
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgment on July 9, 2026, in Case C-788/24. At its core, the case asked whether publishers who implement state-of-the-art geo-blocking can still face liability for copyright infringement when users employ VPNs to bypass those restrictions. The answer, according to the court, is no. Not automatically. 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.
That sentence lands with real weight. It affirms that VPNs don’t automatically render geo-blocking useless under EU copyright law. Publishers aren’t forced to treat every potential bypass as a failure of their protective systems. But the decision goes further. It explicitly shields VPN providers from liability when users access geo-blocked content. They are neutral intermediaries. Nothing more.
The dispute began years earlier. In 2021, the Anne Frank Stichting, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Belgian association published a free scholarly edition of Anne Frank’s manuscripts on a Belgian website. The materials entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU countries. Yet in the Netherlands, copyright protection for some of Anne Frank’s works extends until 2037. To respect that territorial difference, the publishers installed geo-blocking. Dutch IP addresses were denied access. Users had to confirm they were not in the Netherlands.
Still, determined visitors could route their traffic through a VPN and view the content. The Anne Frank Fonds, the Swiss-based holder of the remaining Dutch copyrights, sued. It argued that the mere availability of bypass tools meant the geo-blocking wasn’t truly effective. Therefore, the publishers had communicated the protected work to the Dutch public. Lower Dutch courts sided with the publishers. The case climbed to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred key questions to the EU’s top court.
Advocate General Athanásios Rantos had already signaled support for a balanced view in his January 2026 opinion. Recent coverage in World IP Review from July 9, 2026, captured the final judgment’s clarity. The court ruled that effective geo-blocking, even if not impenetrable, prevents a finding of communication to the public in the blocked territory. Liability stays with the publisher only if the measure fails the effectiveness test under Article 6(3) of the Copyright Directive. And VPNs, by themselves, do not make the measure ineffective.
TechRadar first broke down the practical meaning for everyday users and the industry. In its July 21, 2026, article, the publication quoted the court’s recognition of VPNs as lawful technical tools. That phrasing matters. It rejects any notion that these services exist primarily to enable infringement. Instead, they serve legitimate purposes. Privacy. Security. Access to information in an era of growing digital borders.
But the ruling’s significance runs deeper than one diary or one website. Territorial copyright has always created friction online. A work can be free in one country and tightly controlled in another. Before this decision, publishers faced a stark choice. Risk liability across borders or avoid publishing altogether. Now they have clearer guardrails. Implement reasonable, up-to-date geo-blocking. Document those efforts. And the law will not punish them for the existence of circumvention tools.
Privacy advocates see even broader promise. For years they have warned that treating VPNs with suspicion threatens fundamental rights. Encryption hides traffic from snoops. IP masking protects against tracking. In repressive environments, these tools help journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens. The court’s language validates that reality. It refuses to let copyright enforcement swallow the legitimate role of privacy technology.
Internet users gain too. Millions rely on VPNs daily for streaming, research, or simply avoiding price discrimination based on location. This judgment reduces the legal cloud hanging over those activities. It doesn’t eliminate copyright. Unauthorized access can still trigger claims in the right context. Yet it draws a line against overreach. Providers of VPN services won’t be dragged into every infringement suit simply because their product works as designed.
Legal experts have begun to unpack the nuances. A July 13, 2026, analysis from VitalLaw noted that the decision confirms geo-blocking can qualify as an effective technological protection measure despite VPN circumvention. That balance, the piece argued, gives publishers confidence while preserving user choice. Another report from Harte-Bavendamm on the same topic emphasized the ruling’s clarity on liability. Publishers who act responsibly face lower risk. VPN companies remain neutral players.
The Anne Frank Fonds has not yet commented publicly on next steps in the Dutch proceedings. The case now returns to the Netherlands for final resolution under the CJEU’s guidance. Observers expect the publishers to prevail. More importantly, the precedent travels across the EU. National courts must interpret copyright rules in light of this holding.
Of course, challenges remain. Some member states experiment with blocking VPNs used for piracy. France has targeted certain services. Those efforts test the boundary between national enforcement and EU-wide principles of technological neutrality. The July 2026 judgment does not directly address forced blocking of VPN apps. But its affirmation of their lawful status could complicate aggressive restrictions.
Industry voices welcomed the news. A recent X post from privacy-focused users echoed the sentiment. One noted that the court explicitly recognized VPNs as lawful technical tools in the Anne Frank context. Another highlighted how the decision protects neutral intermediaries. These reactions, while informal, reflect wider relief among technologists and digital rights groups.
Look closer at the technical side. Modern geo-blocking relies on IP databases, sometimes supplemented by user declarations. VPNs that use residential proxies or obfuscated servers can evade detection. The court acknowledged this arms race. It refused to demand perfect, unbreakable controls. Such a standard would be unrealistic. It would also harm innovation. Companies would hesitate to offer any service that sophisticated users might repurpose.
That pragmatic stance stands in contrast to some earlier copyright battles. Courts have sometimes stretched concepts like communication to the public to cover secondary actors. Here, the CJEU drew a sharper distinction. The publisher controls the website and the blocking measure. The VPN provider does not. The user who chooses to circumvent bears responsibility for any infringement that follows. Simple. Direct.
Privacy advocates point to another layer. In an age of pervasive surveillance, mass data collection, and government demands for backdoors, tools that restore user control matter. The ruling doesn’t solve every threat. It does, however, remove one legal pretext for demonizing encryption and anonymity services. That alone justifies celebration.
Scholars have long debated the tension between territorial rights and the borderless internet. This decision offers a workable compromise. Respect copyright where it exists. Use technology to enforce those boundaries reasonably. Accept that no system is foolproof. And don’t penalize the providers of general-purpose tools.
The Anne Frank manuscripts case carries historical resonance. The young writer’s words have come to symbolize resistance to tyranny and the importance of free expression. That the dispute over her legacy produced a ruling supporting privacy tools feels oddly fitting. It reminds us that technology serving openness and individual autonomy deserves protection in law.
Future cases will test the limits. What counts as state-of-the-art geo-blocking in 2027 or beyond? How should courts weigh evidence of widespread circumvention? The CJEU left room for factual analysis. Yet the core principle stands. VPNs are not outlaw devices. They are legitimate instruments. And that declaration from Europe’s highest court carries lasting power.
Users, advocates, and the broader internet community can breathe easier. The ruling reinforces that privacy technology has a secure place in the digital order. It rejects the idea that effectiveness must mean invulnerability. And it places responsibility where it belongs, with those who choose to publish, those who implement protections, and those who decide how to access content.
So the decision marks real progress. Not a radical overhaul of copyright. Not an end to territorial disputes. But a clear statement that lawful tools deserve lawful treatment. For anyone who values both intellectual property and personal privacy online, that’s very good news indeed.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication