- Wisconsin lawmakers remove VPN ban provision from age verification law
- The requirement for adult sites to block VPN users was scrapped
- Digital rights experts warn that privacy and freedom of expression issues remain
Wisconsin lawmakers have scrapped a controversial VPN ban from an age verification law after backlash from residents and digital rights experts.
Senate Bill 130 (and its counterpart AB 105) was first introduced in March 2025 and initially required any provider distributing “harmful” material to minors to block all users connecting through a VPN.
Republican Senator Van Wanggaard moved to amend the provision on Wednesday, February 19. The amendment also added “virtual service provider” to the bill’s final section to clarify that VPN companies themselves are not liable under the law. The Senate welcomed the amendment, and the Assembly agreed the following day, sending the bill to the governor’s desk for signature.
The move marks a significant victory for privacy in the state and follows an open letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that called the original proposal a “spectacularly bad idea.”
“That’s good news. Politicians heard the concerns and fears of VPN users in Wisconsin, how a ban just wouldn’t work, and removed that section,” Rindala “Rin” Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at EFF, told TechRadar.
Alajaji warns that the broader bill remains problematic, citing potential privacy violations, security risks and restrictions on freedom of expression.
Privacy and freedom of expression are still at risk
“It looks like the public advocacy and pushback really worked. But I want to make it clear that the bill is still very problematic even without the VPN provision,” Alajaji told TechRadar.
Like similar age verification laws appearing across the United States, the Wisconsin bill would require both adults and minors to share sensitive personal information with any platform that hosts content deemed “harmful to minors.”
This process often involves uploading government IDs, financial records or biometric data, creating highly sensitive databases that experts warn are prime targets for data breaches and privacy abuses.
The EFF also argues that the bill’s definition of what is “harmful” is dangerously broad. As written, any sexually explicit content must be age-appropriate if it lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scholarly value for minors.” It’s a vague standard that critics say invites over-censorship, slows down lawful speech and leaves companies vulnerable to unpredictable enforcement.
Beyond Wisconsin
Wisconsin isn’t the only state weighing VPN restrictions alongside age verification laws. Michigan introduced a similar bill last September, although the proposal has yet to gain significant traction.
Alajaji told TechRadar that Michigan’s bill has only been filed and is not yet scheduled for a hearing. She sees the delay as a “good thing” since the bill seeks to go even further by banning the promotion or sale of circumvention tools.
Critics also point to the bill’s troubling definition of material “harmful to minors,” which controversially includes any reference to transgender people.
While US VPN users may be safe for now, the situation across the Atlantic is more uncertain. British politicians have shown a growing commitment to “closing the VPN loophole” that bypasses mandatory age checks. Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently confirmed that the government can “age-restrict or restrict children’s VPN use” after a three-month consultation period.
Despite the concerns of UK users, the prospect of UK restrictions may inadvertently strengthen the global argument against such bans. Alajaji suggests that a British-led VPN crack could serve as a cautionary tale illustrating the collateral damage such restrictions inflict on businesses and individual privacy.
“I feel like the only reason these proposals have gone this far is that we haven’t seen that effect. The reality is that it’s just really hard to implement a VPN ban in general; to do it precisely is almost impossible,” she said.
We test and review VPN services for legitimate recreational use. For example: 1. Accessing a Service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that Service). 2. Protecting your online security and enhancing your online privacy when you are abroad. We do not support or condone the use of a VPN service to break the law or carry out illegal activities. Consumption of paid-for pirated content is neither endorsed nor endorsed by Future Publishing.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews and opinions in your feeds. Be sure to click the Follow button!
