EU Censorship News

The EU's highest court has ruled that publishers who use state-of-the-art geo-blocking are not liable for copyright infringement, even when users bypass their restrictions with a VPN. The ruling, which was handed down in the landmark copyright battle involving digital copies of the iconic Anne Frank diary, also shields VPN providers from liability.

While the diary's importance is universally recognized, the accessibility of its digital manuscripts has been at the centre of a Dutch copyright battle that eventually made its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ).

The legal dispute was triggered by differences in copyright protection terms in the EU. Parts of Anne Franks manuscripts remain protected in the Netherlands until 2037, while the same material entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU member states years ago.

To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting published a scholarly edition online using state-of-the-art geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions:

The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations=

Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn't 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldnt be online at all.

The Dutch lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now heading back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred several questions to the EUs top court to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking.

In January, Advocate General Rantos published his opinion concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure and that VPN providers are neutral intermediaries. That opinion was not binding, but it set the tone for what followed.

Last week, the CJEUs Second Chamber delivered its final judgment. The Court ruled that a work thats in the public domain in some EU member states, but still under copyright in another, can be published on a geo-blocked website without being considered an infringing communication to the public in the protected country.

The Court recognized that geo-blocking can be circumvented with a VPN, but that is not the decisive factor. If a publisher specifically chose to use a state-of-the-art geo-blocking to block visitors from a specific country, it is clear that these people are not the intended audience.

The Court also rejected the idea that publishers should be required to use stricter access controls, such as subscriptions or login requirements. Imposing those measures would disproportionately restrict free access for users in public-domain countries.

VPN providers are also not liable if they are used to bypass state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures. The EUs top court sees VPN providers as neutral intermediaries, referring to previous rulings where YouTube and Uploaded were not held liable for pirating users. As an intermediary, a VPN itself simply acts as a secure, neutral routing tool thats not communicating anything to the public.

This conclusion is significant. It effectively confirms that the EUs highest court does not see VPN providers as copyright infringers simply because their technology enables users to bypass geographical restrictions. The Broader Fallout

Ireland's government is preparing to require citizens to use a state-controlled digital wallet app to access social media platforms and adult websites, even as its own departments continue to suffer repeated data breaches.

The app, being developed by the governments chief information officer, will hold key personal identifiers such as a persons Public Services Card and drivers license, and could later include other credentials like a TV license.

Under the proposal, social media companies will be required to use this government system to verify the age of users before granting access to their platforms.

Surveillance Minister Patrick ODonovan described the plan as a necessary step to address what he called the severe public health issue of children viewing inappropriate material online. He said that hose who refuse to use the app would lose access to their social media accounts and to websites listed on a government age-restricted schedule.

However the Irish government's own of protecting personal information remains poor. Figures released by the Department of Defence show that 31 data breaches occurred in 2025, though only two were serious enough to be reported to the Data Protection Commission (DPC).

Poland's nationalist President Karol Nawrocki has vetoed EU censorship law. The EU's Digital Services Act, which seeks to force big platforms like Elon Musk's X, Facebook, Instagram to censor content, as a form of Orwellian censorship against conservatives and right-wingers.

The presidential veto stops national regulators in Warsaw from implementing the DSA.

Nawrocki argued that while the bill's stated aim of protecting citizens was legitimate, the Polish bill would grant excessive power to government officials over online content, resulting in administrative censorship. Nawrocki said in a statement;

I want this to be stated clearly: a situation in which what is allowed on the internet is decided by an official subordinate to the government resembles the construction of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's novel 1984.

French lawmakers are preparing a renewed push to restrict children's online experience, unveiling a proposal that would block anyone under 15 from using social media platforms.

The draft legislation sets September 2026 as the target date for enforcement.

President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the plan and urged Parliament to take it up.

To apply such a rule, online platforms would need to verify every user's age at sign-up or login. This would go far beyond the current model of self-declared birthdays and instead rely on official credentials such as national IDs, drivers licenses, or government-backed digital identity wallets. In effect, it would introduce a form of digital ID into everyday internet use.