Wisconsin VPN Ban Sparks Civil Liberties Fight

Wisconsin's proposed VPN ban is drawing a privacy storm.

The bill, S.B. 130 / A.B. 105, would require invasive age verification for websites that host content lawmakers designate as “sexual” and would compel those sites to block any user who connects via a VPN. The goal, supporters say, is to shield minors, but the practicalities look far messier: websites cannot reliably determine whether a VPN user is in Wisconsin, another state, or another country. To avoid liability, they would face a brutal choice—over-block legitimate users, block all Wisconsin traffic, or extend nationwide restrictions just to stay off the hook.

That technical snag is at the heart of the criticism from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In a letter to Wisconsin lawmakers, the digital-privacy nonprofit argues the bill is unworkable and dangerous in practice. VPNs are a basic cybersecurity tool used by countless communities—businesses, universities, journalists, veterans, abuse survivors, and ordinary people who simply don’t want to broadcast their location online. The EFF warns that forcing sites to detect and block VPN traffic would require invasive, error-prone location checks, creating a privacy nightmare and chilling legitimate speech.

The measure has already cleared Wisconsin’s Assembly and now awaits a Senate vote, scheduled for the following day, according to the advocacy group. The legislation embodies a broader trend in which state lawmakers try to retrofit age gates onto online content. Proponents say it protects minors from exposure, but critics contend it weaponizes age verification to justify intrusive surveillance and broad censorship.

For tech operators, the policy would be a sharp test of feasibility and risk. Even if a site attempted strict “Wisconsin-only” enforcement, the nonuniform nature of VPNs means traffic would be misclassified with alarming frequency. Bitten by misfires, operators could over-block IP ranges commonly associated with VPN services, inadvertently cutting off access for paying customers, educators, journalists, or researchers who work remotely or travel. In the worst case, operators might analogize that every VPN user is a risk and block them wholesale, stifling lawful, protected speech just to shield themselves from liability.

And the cost of compliance would not be trivial. Age-verification workflows—already a contentious and privacy-invasive domain—would need secure data handling, persistent identity checks, and robust opt-out or appeal mechanisms. Small publishers and niche sites could face steep implementation bills, while larger platforms would weigh the tradeoffs between user experience and risk reduction. The practical effect, observers warn, could be a chilling effect: wary readers and independent voices retreating behind paywalls or leaving platforms entirely.

What to watch next is simple but consequential: the Senate vote and any amendments offered to address the obvious pitfalls. If the bill advances, expect court challenges centered on free speech, privacy, and the technical feasibility of reliable location sensing. If it stalls, advocates will pivot to other vehicles for age gates or privacy-preserving safeguards—yet the tension between content safety and civil liberties will stay front and center in Wisconsin policy debates.

Sources

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