EU Court Says VPNs Do Not Automatically Break Copyright Geo-Blocking Rules
A Court of Justice ruling in the Anne Frank Fonds case says users being able to bypass geo-blocking with a VPN does not by itself make a publisher liable in a blocked country, and does not shift copyright responsibility onto the VPN provider.
Quick takeaways
- The CJEU judgment says effective, state-of-the-art geo-blocking can avoid a copyright communication to users in a protected Member State even if some people could bypass it with a VPN.
- If geo-blocking is ineffective, the Court said responsibility sits with the publisher of the website, not automatically with the VPN or similar service used to get around it.
- For ordinary users, this is not a green light to ignore streaming, copyright or platform rules; it is a narrow legal ruling that recognises VPNs as legitimate technical tools in that context.
What happened?
The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a judgment in Case C-788/24, Anne Frank Fonds v Anne Frank Stichting and others, about online publication, copyright and geo-blocking. The dispute centred on Anne Frank manuscripts that were in the public domain in some EU Member States but still protected by copyright in the Netherlands.
The website at issue used geo-blocking to stop access from countries where copyright protection still applied. The Court said that if a geo-blocking measure is effective and state of the art, the mere fact that a user could circumvent it with a VPN or similar service does not automatically mean the work was communicated to the public in the blocked country.
Why it matters for VPN users
The practical significance is that the Court did not treat VPN use itself as proof that a publisher targeted a blocked country, and it did not make a VPN provider automatically responsible for a user's circumvention of an ineffective block. That matters because VPNs are used for many ordinary reasons: privacy on public Wi-Fi, safer travel connections, remote work, censorship resistance and reducing IP-based tracking.
At the same time, the judgment is narrow. It does not say every VPN use is lawful in every setting, and it does not override a streaming service's terms, copyright rules, workplace policy or local law. VPN users should avoid turning a specific copyright ruling into a blanket permission slip.
What you can do now
Use a VPN for legitimate privacy and security needs, especially on networks you do not control. If you are using a VPN around streaming, travel or location checks, read the service rules and understand that access can still be blocked or accounts can be restricted when terms are breached.
If you run a website that relies on territorial rights, the message is different: do not assume a basic IP block is enough. The Court's reasoning depends on effective, state-of-the-art geo-blocking, careful targeting and who actually made protected material available.
Where a VPN helps — and where it does not
A VPN can hide your home IP address from many sites, encrypt traffic from your device to the VPN provider, and reduce local network snooping when you are travelling or using public Wi-Fi. It can also make your connection appear to come from another VPN server location.
A VPN does not make copyrighted content free to use, guarantee streaming access, remove a platform's right to enforce its terms, or make you anonymous to every service you log into. Treat VPN legality as context-specific, not as a single yes-or-no answer.
VPN Rocks view
This ruling is useful because it separates a legitimate privacy tool from the legal responsibility for publishing protected material. That is the right distinction for ordinary VPN buyers: choose a VPN for privacy and security, but do not expect it to erase copyright, contract or account rules.
Sources and further reading
VPN Rocks adds plain-English analysis and practical advice. Source links are included so readers can check the underlying guidance directly.