Legislation requiring adult sites to block VPN traffic advances to Senate, raising alarm among privacy advocates

Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing forward with controversial legislation that could criminalize the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to access adult content websites. Known as Assembly Bill 105/Senate Bill 130 (AB 105/SB 130), the proposal has already passed the Assembly and held its first Senate hearing on October 8, marking a significant step toward becoming law.

The bill represents a dramatic escalation in the ongoing battle over internet age verification, positioning Wisconsin alongside Michigan’s aggressive internet censorship efforts in taking an aggressive stance against privacy tools that lawmakers view as obstacles to protecting minors online.

What the Bill Requires

At its core, the legislation mandates that businesses publishing or distributing “material harmful to minors” on websites containing a substantial portion of such content must implement robust age verification methods before granting access. But the bill goes further, requiring these sites to prevent access from any IP address linked to or known to be a VPN system or provider.

The bill targets service providers operating in Wisconsin that “knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material harmful to minors on the Internet,” forcing them to block anyone accessing their content while connected to a VPN. Users would need to verify their age using government-issued identification or commercial verification systems, and businesses would be prohibited from retaining identifying information after access is granted or denied.

The Technical Impossibility Problem

Privacy experts and technical specialists have raised serious questions about whether the bill’s VPN blocking requirement can even be implemented as written.

The fundamental challenge is this: websites can only detect the masked IP addresses provided by VPNs, not users’ actual locations. This creates a practical impossibility for sites to selectively block VPN traffic originating specifically from Wisconsin.

The consequences could be far-reaching. Users in Wisconsin might be forced to provide sensitive personal information—including biometric data, identification documents, and payment details—without the privacy protections VPNs offer. Alternatively, adult content providers might implement blanket VPN restrictions affecting users worldwide.

The biometric data concerns echo similar issues raised about Arizona’s biometric digital ID law for adult websites, which has sparked intense debate over the privacy-versus-protection trade-off.

Privacy Advocates Sound the Alarm

Digital rights organizations have condemned the proposal as a threat to free speech and online privacy.

Lia Holland, Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future, warned that “censorship and mass surveillance shouldn’t be the answer to child safety.” She told TechRadar: “This bill is a shortsighted measure that will come back to bite whatever political party chooses to pass it, and an assault on free speech. It will not, in fact, make people or kids in Wisconsin safer; it will just push people further to the fringes. And teens to take ever-greater digital risks to find what they’re looking for online.”

The concern extends beyond adult content. Another potential outcome could shift the burden to VPN companies themselves. Christine Bannan, US Public Policy Manager at Proton, expressed her company’s fears about Michigan’s similar law: “We don’t want to be forced to track content, nor do we want our users to accept having their information tracked. We don’t wanna be a tool of blocking, and that’s the bigger risk.”

Part of a Growing Trend

Wisconsin’s bill is not an isolated case. In September, Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation that would force internet service providers to monitor and block VPN connections altogether, and even ban the promotion or sale of circumvention tools to access prohibited material—a proposal Proton called “a danger for the political discourse.” The Michigan bill (HB 4938) goes even further, targeting not just adult content but also content related to transgender expression.

Across the Atlantic, the UK’s Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, has also deemed VPNs “a loophole that needs closing,” reflecting growing international pressure on privacy tools in the name of child protection.

As of late 2025, 24 U.S. states have active age verification laws, with many others considering similar legislation. The trend has led to dramatic spikes in VPN usage as citizens seek to protect their privacy when accessing legal content.

The scope of these laws varies dramatically: While Wisconsin focuses on VPN blocking for adult sites, Texas has taken the extreme step of requiring ID verification to download virtually any app—including weather apps and other non-controversial software. Meanwhile, Mississippi’s age verification enforcement has led to standoffs with emerging social platforms like Bluesky, highlighting the complex challenges these laws create for both established and emerging online services.

Legitimate Uses at Risk

Critics emphasize that VPNs serve numerous legitimate purposes beyond accessing adult content. Businesses rely on VPNs for secure remote work connections. Journalists and activists use them to protect sources and communicate safely. Everyday users employ VPNs to shield their data from hackers on public Wi-Fi networks and protect themselves from surveillance.

Mario Trujillo from the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that VPN restrictions would be practically impossible to enforce: “VPNs are widely used by employees across various sectors to connect to company networks.” He suggests that lawmakers should focus on comprehensive privacy regulations rather than blanket bans.

Unanswered Questions

The bill’s language presents additional ambiguities. It fails to clearly specify whether social media platforms would be classified as sites containing “material harmful to minors.” Furthermore, the legislation requires age verification for sexually explicit content lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors,” but provides no guidance on who would make such subjective determinations.

As the bill progresses through Wisconsin’s legislative process, many technical and practical concerns remain unaddressed, despite inquiries from media outlets seeking clarification on implementation details.

The Broader Debate

The Wisconsin proposal highlights a fundamental tension in internet policy: how to balance the legitimate goal of protecting minors from inappropriate content with the equally important need to preserve privacy, free speech, and the security tools that millions of law-abiding adults rely on daily.

In response to these growing threats, Fight for the Future has launched the “Defend VPNs Day of Action” initiative, calling on lawmakers to take “principled leadership” when it comes to privacy tools rather than treating them as problems to be eliminated.

As Wisconsin’s bill moves through the Senate, the outcome could set a precedent for how states across the country approach the complex intersection of child safety, digital privacy, and internet freedom in the years ahead. With states like Michigan, Texas, Arizona, and Mississippi each taking different—and increasingly invasive—approaches to age verification, the patchwork of conflicting state laws threatens to fragment the American internet while doing little to actually protect children.

🎧 Related Podcast Episode