Denmark's government has proposed legislation that could make it illegal to use VPNs for accessing geo-blocked streaming content or bypassing website blocks.
The move has sparked immediate backlash from privacy advocates and legal experts who warn the bill's vague wording could criminalize legitimate VPN usage.
The proposal comes from Denmark's Ministry of Culture and is currently under public consultation. According to the official hearing portal (in Danish), the bill aims to combat online piracy and protect copyright holders by updating existing laws to be "technology-neutral."
If passed, violations would result in fines. The law is set to take effect on July 1, 2026, assuming it clears the consultation period that ends on January 9, 2026.
Should You Be Worried?
The proposal has triggered intense debate. On Reddit's r/Denmark forum, people have been discussing the implications (in Danish) of the bill, with many expressing skepticism about its true intentions.
Some commenters question the government's motivations, pointing out the timing of this proposal alongside Denmark's strong support for the controversial EU Chat Control legislation. They see it as part of a broader pattern of undermining digital privacy protections.
Others suggest this could be a political move to appease voters rather than a serious attempt to address copyright infringement.
Speaking to DR, a Danish broadcaster, Jesper Lund, chairman of IT-Politisk Forening, called the proposal troubling. "It has a totalitarian whiff about it", he said. Adding that he had "not heard of other countries that have directly wanted to make it illegal to use VPN services to access closed websites."
Sten Schaumburg-Müller, a professor at the Juridisk Institut at Syddansk Universitet (Department of Law at University of Southern Denmark), concurs the law is problematic from a legal standpoint:
I think that the background to the proposal is reasonable, but due to the way it is written, I agree with the criticism that it is too broadly worded. It is technically a bit bad. It does not affect the purpose, because the law says ”unauthorized access” to media content, and it is broader than copyright protection.
Denmark's Culture Minister Jakob Engel-Schmidt has pushed back against the criticism, calling it a "deliberate misunderstanding" of the proposal. In a reply on X (formerly Twitter), he wrote:
It is fake news. I do not advocate for criminalizing VPN and will certainly not propose that. In all modesty, this seems like a deliberate misunderstanding of a fairly modest bill, which solely establishes that it is illegal to stream sports without paying.
The minister also provided a written statement to DR, clarifying his position:
I am not in favor of making VPN illegal, and I will never suggest that. That is why the critics have also got this bill completely wrong. With this bill, we state that it is illegal to stream football matches when you have not paid for the match or have a subscription. That's how it was 10 years ago, and that's how it will continue to be, it says.
But when the purpose of the law can be misunderstood so fundamentally, and you see ghosts that do not exist at all, I will of course ask my civil service to clarify this on the basis of the hearing. That is precisely the whole purpose of a public hearing.
💬 What do you think? Is this a legitimate anti-piracy measure, or does the vague wording threaten legitimate VPN use cases?
Suggested Read 📖: Best No-Logs VPNs for Linux
Sourav Rudra
