The EU’s highest court issued a ruling in July (Case C-788/24), holding that VPNs (virtual private networks) are “lawful technical tools.” Bypassing geo-blocked content by “going over the wall” does not constitute copyright infringement; as long as the publisher uses the “most advanced” geo-blocking technology, it has already fulfilled its obligation of reasonable oversight and does not need to be held liable for copyright infringement because users bypass the restrictions via VPN. VPN service providers also do not need to be jointly liable for users’ bypass actions.
Copyright Fragmentation of Anne Frank’s Diary
The copyright status of the Anne Frank diary manuscript within the EU is not uniform. In roughly 60 countries such as Belgium, the manuscript has entered the public domain, allowing anyone to use it freely; but in the Netherlands, some content is still protected by copyright, and is not expected to expire until 2037. The existence of this “copyright border” has led Dutch and Belgian academic institutions to adopt technical measures to separate the access rights of readers in the two countries.
Geo-Blocking Plans by Academic Institutions in the Netherlands and Belgium
Academic institutions, including the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), have converted the Anne Frank diary manuscript into free online academic versions and published them; to respect Dutch copyright, they intentionally set up their servers in Belgium and used geo-blocking technology to block access coming from Dutch IP addresses. When Dutch readers enter the website, they will only see an information page explaining why they cannot access it.
The core claim of the Anne Frank Fonds lawsuit is this: VPNs are too easy to obtain—Dutch users only need to turn on a VPN and mask it as a Belgian address to bypass the geo-blocking. Therefore, the geo-blocking is effectively a sham, and the website is still, in substance, transmitting the protected work to the “Dutch public.”
The EU Court’s Core Logic: “Reasonably Effective” Geo-Blocking Suffices
In its ruling, the EU Court issued a key holding: although geo-blocking can be inevitably bypassed, the mere fact that “someone can get around it” cannot, by itself, be used to prove that the protective measure has failed. The four core conclusions in this case are as follows:
Using the most advanced technology satisfies the duty: the publisher does not need to be held liable for copyright infringement for users’ VPN-bypass actions
Reasonably effective, not absolutely uncrackable: the standard the court requires is “reasonably effective,” not a perfect defense that is “absolutely impossible to break”
Copyright holders cannot claim protection is ineffective based solely on the “existence of VPNs”: copyright holders must present more specific proof; they cannot win directly by arguing that VPN tools are widely available
VPN providers are not jointly liable: VPN or similar service providers do not need to be jointly liable for users’ actions to bypass geo-restrictions
Legal Impacts of the Ruling on VPN Providers and General Users
The EU Court’s ruling in Case C-788/24 has two aspects of legal impact on the VPN industry and on ordinary users: VPN service providers are explicitly excluded from the scope of joint liability in copyright lawsuits. TorrentFreak noted that this is the most important victory for the VPN industry on the EU’s legal battlefield in recent years; for everyday VPN users, encrypting traffic, hiding real IP addresses, and bypassing geo-blocking, according to the EU’s highest court’s characterization, fall under “lawful consumer-oriented technology use.”
This ruling also shifts the balance of the burden of proof from “users and VPN providers” back to “publishers.” If content platforms want to maintain the boundaries of territorial licensing, they must continuously maintain technology defenses that keep pace with the times, rather than hoping to completely block “going over the wall” behavior.
FAQ
What is the core ruling of the EU Court in Case C-788/24?
In Case C-788/24, the EU’s highest court ruled that: (1) VPNs are lawful technical tools; (2) bypassing geo-blocking by going over the wall does not constitute copyright infringement; (3) using the most advanced geo-blocking satisfies the publisher’s duty; (4) VPN providers do not need to be jointly liable for users’ bypass actions; and (5) copyright holders cannot argue that geo-blocking protections are ineffective based solely on the “existence of VPNs.”
What are Anne Frank Fonds’s claims, and why did the court reject them?
Anne Frank Fonds argued that because VPNs are easy to obtain and geo-blocking can be easily bypassed, the academic institutions’ protections are effectively meaningless and, in reality, still transmit works protected by copyright to the Dutch public. The EU’s highest court rejected this claim on the grounds that “someone can get around it” by itself does not equate to the protective measures failing, and that the court requires a “reasonably effective” standard rather than one that is “absolutely uncrackable.”
What practical impact does this ruling have on VPN users in the EU?
Under the EU’s highest court’s ruling, using a VPN to encrypt traffic, hide IP addresses, and bypass geo-blocking is categorized under EU law as “lawful consumer-oriented technology use.” Users will not face copyright infringement charges as a result. If content platforms want to maintain territorial licensing boundaries, they must independently and continuously maintain effective technological defenses.
