VPN Ban Heads to Senate Vote

Wisconsin's VPN ban bill just cleared the Assembly and heads to a Senate vote tomorrow.

The measure, S.B. 130 / A.B. 105, would require age verification for websites that host content lawmakers categorize as sexual and, critically, compel those sites to block users who connect through a Virtual Private Network. The bill’s supporters argue it would shield minors from harmful material, but digital rights advocates say the approach is unworkable and dangerous for free expression online. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has gone so far as to urge legislators to reject the bill, warning that it would create a privacy nightmare and trigger sweeping, unintended censorship.

The core mechanism is blunt: if a site hosts content deemed sexual, it must verify a user’s age, and if that user appears online via a VPN, the site must prevent access. The practical problem, argues the EFF, is that websites cannot reliably determine whether a VPN user is physically in Wisconsin, another state, or another country. To avoid liability, sites would face a painful triage: over-block legitimate Wisconsin users via overly aggressive IP filtering, block all Wisconsin visitors or even nationwide access, or abandon VPNs entirely and risk alienating legitimate users who rely on them for privacy, security, or work.

The EFF letter frames the bill as a technical and civil-liberties trap. VPNs are a basic cybersecurity tool used by businesses, universities, journalists, veterans, abuse survivors, and ordinary people who don’t want their location broadcast with every click. If a site is forced to block VPN users, it creates a slippery slope toward indiscriminate censorship and mass-blocking—poison for a state that prides itself on a robust tech and startup ecosystem and a free-flowing digital economy. The group describes it as a “privacy nightmare,” not just a regulatory overreach.

For policymakers, the exchange highlights a broader policy tension: how to protect minors online without trampling civil liberties or chilling legitimate speech. If enacted, the bill would reshape the online landscape in Wisconsin in ways that extend beyond age checks. Websites might retreat from Wisconsin entirely to avoid the compliance headache, which would hit local publishers, small businesses, and data-driven startups that rely on broad, open access. Journalists and researchers, who frequently rely on VPNs to protect sources or to access diverse datasets, could find themselves unable to operate with the same flexibility they currently enjoy.

Two practitioner insights stand out. First, enforcement practicality will dominate any real-world result. Even with robust reporting, a state cannot perfectly verify VPN usage or pin down a user’s true location at web-scale. That mismatch invites a game of cat and mouse, with sites either over-blocking or watering down access for a sizable portion of Wisconsin residents. Second, the economic and privacy tradeoffs are real. The bill’s age-verification requirement would force sites to collect more personal data, heightening risk of data breaches and misuse. That risk compounds with the cultural shift toward stricter online content controls, potentially chilling legitimate discourse and research.

As Wisconsin lawmakers weigh this proposal, the specter of legal challenges looms. Critics say the bill’s technical flaws and civil-liberties implications would invite litigation and governance questions about states’ reach into the functioning of the open internet. If the Senate votes in favor, the measure could move toward enactment, setting the stage for immediate compliance burdens and a renewed national debate about where state regulation ends and online rights begin.

Sources

EFF to Wisconsin Legislature: VPN Bans Are Still a Terrible Idea