The Denmark VPN bill aimed at updating anti-piracy rules is being adjusted after Culture Minister Jakob Engel-Schmidt said the government will remove language that could be read as banning VPN use for accessing geo-blocked content such as US Netflix.
What the Denmark VPN bill originally tried to do
The draft legislation was presented as part of a wider effort to modernise Denmark’s approach to online piracy, including illegal IPTV and unauthorised streaming of live sports. The consultation material described a shift towards a more technology-neutral framework, reflecting how piracy has moved from physical “decoder” devices to software, apps and other tools.
One of the most contentious elements was wording that appeared to criminalise the use of a VPN to access media content that “would otherwise not be available in Denmark”, as well as using technical solutions to bypass blocks on illegal sites. Critics argued that, even if the political intent was anti-piracy enforcement, the drafting risked creating legal uncertainty for ordinary and lawful VPN use.
Why the government removed the VPN clause
In a statement released by the Ministry of Culture (Kulturministeriet), Engel-Schmidt said the proposal had not been formulated precisely enough and that some readers were seeing “ghosts” in the current wording. He said he does not support making VPNs illegal and removed the VPN section specifically to avoid any doubt that the government is not seeking a general VPN ban.
The minister also said the ministry will now examine whether the anti-piracy part of the proposal can be adjusted and sent out for consultation again at a later stage.
What remains: online piracy enforcement and copyright licensing disputes
While the VPN-related wording is being dropped, the ministry has indicated that other parts of the legislative package will continue through the parliamentary process.
A key element concerns the role of Ophavsretslicensnævnet (the Copyright Licence Tribunal), which Denmark uses to handle disputes in certain copyright licensing areas. The consultation documents describe the tribunal as a more central forum for resolving disagreements over licensing terms and remuneration, with court review still possible but, in some cases, conditioned on prior tribunal handling.
This part of the proposal is less visible in the public debate but could matter significantly for how rights holders and platforms manage licensing conflicts, especially as streaming and digital distribution expand.
The questions raised by critics: enforcement and lawful VPN use
VPNs are widely used for legitimate purposes, from workplace security and remote access to protecting privacy on public Wi‑Fi. Digital rights advocates warned that unclear rules could incentivise overbroad enforcement and make users unsure about what is legal.
At the same time, the government’s policy aim—reducing large-scale piracy, including illegal sports streaming—reflects a wider European trend where rights holders have pushed for stronger tools against unauthorised distribution. The challenge for lawmakers is to target piracy without creating collateral uncertainty for everyday security tools that are legal and commonly used.
How this interacts with EU rules on cross-border access
Denmark’s debate also touches on a point that is often misunderstood in public discussion: EU rules do not generally allow subscribers to bypass territorial licensing at home.
However, under the EU’s cross-border portability framework, EU residents who subscribe to online content services in their home member state should be able to access the same services when they are temporarily in another EU member state. The Danish debate over VPN use is separate from this portability principle, but the two issues can be confused in public discussion—especially when VPNs are framed as a tool to access “foreign catalogues”.
What happens next
The government’s decision to remove the VPN clause is a clear sign that drafting details matter: in digital policy, small wording choices can carry major implications for enforcement and civil liberties.
If the ministry returns with a revised, more narrowly targeted proposal, the consultation process will likely become a key arena for Denmark’s tech sector, rights holders, consumer organisations and digital rights groups. The outcome will also be watched across the Nordics, where governments face similar pressures to balance copyright enforcement, online security and legal clarity for ordinary internet users.
