A last-minute amendment to a Wisconsin age verification bill has reignited a national debate over how far state legislatures should go in policing access to online content — and whether privacy tools like virtual private networks should become collateral damage in the process.
Wisconsin’s Assembly Bill 200, which would require pornographic websites to verify that users are at least 18 years old, initially contained a provision that would have made it illegal for residents to use VPNs or other tools to circumvent the age-check requirement. The penalty: a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. After a public backlash and pointed criticism from digital rights advocates, the bill’s authors reversed course and removed the VPN ban before the measure passed the state Assembly on June 10, 2025, as reported by CNET.
How a VPN Ban Found Its Way Into an Age Verification Bill
The original language of AB 200 was sweeping. It would have criminalized the use of any “anonymizing service, technological tool, or other method” to bypass the bill’s age verification mechanisms. VPNs, which encrypt internet traffic and mask a user’s geographic location, were the most obvious target. Millions of Americans rely on VPNs daily — not to skirt age checks, but to protect sensitive data on public Wi-Fi networks, secure remote work connections, and shield their browsing activity from advertisers and data brokers.
The provision drew immediate fire. Critics argued that criminalizing VPN use to get around age verification was wildly disproportionate and would have chilling effects on legitimate privacy practices. As CNET noted, the bill’s lead sponsor, Republican state Rep. Brent Jacobson, acknowledged the concerns and agreed to strip the VPN language. “We heard from constituents and stakeholders that the VPN provision went too far,” Jacobson said, according to reporting on the legislative session. The amended bill still requires age verification but no longer penalizes users for employing privacy tools.
The Broader Wave of State-Level Age Verification Laws
Wisconsin is far from alone in pushing age verification mandates. Since Louisiana became the first state to enact such a law in 2022, more than a dozen states have followed with similar measures. Texas, Virginia, Utah, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Indiana are among those that now require adult websites to confirm users’ ages, typically through government-issued identification or third-party verification services. The laws have been challenged in court repeatedly, with mixed results.
The legal battles have centered on First Amendment concerns. In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case challenging Texas’s age verification law, HB 1181. The high court’s eventual ruling is expected to set a precedent that could determine the fate of similar laws nationwide. Supporters of the laws, including many Republican legislators and child safety advocacy groups, argue that age gates are a common-sense measure to protect minors from harmful content. Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, counter that the laws effectively create government-supervised checkpoints for accessing legal speech.
Privacy Concerns and the Practical Challenges of Verification
One of the most persistent objections to age verification mandates is the privacy risk they create. Requiring users to submit government IDs or biometric data to access websites generates troves of sensitive personal information. Data breaches at verification providers could expose not only users’ identities but also their browsing habits — a scenario that privacy advocates describe as a nightmare waiting to happen.
Several major adult content platforms have responded to state-level mandates by blocking access entirely in those jurisdictions rather than implementing verification systems. Pornhub, operated by parent company Aylo, has pulled out of multiple states, including Texas, Virginia, and Utah, displaying a message to visitors explaining that the company believes the laws infringe on user privacy. The company has argued that device-based age verification, rather than site-by-site ID checks, would be a more privacy-preserving approach. Meanwhile, smaller sites that lack the resources to implement verification systems may simply ignore the laws, raising questions about enforcement.
Wisconsin’s VPN Clause Was an Outlier — But Not Without Precedent
While the VPN ban in Wisconsin’s original bill was unusual in its directness, the underlying impulse is not new. Several age verification laws include language targeting circumvention. Louisiana’s law, for instance, places liability on commercial entities that fail to perform age verification, but does not specifically criminalize user-side workarounds like VPNs. The Wisconsin bill’s original language stood out because it directly targeted individual users and their choice of privacy tools, rather than placing the burden on website operators.
The removal of the VPN provision does not mean the issue is settled. Legislative staffers in other states have reportedly considered similar anti-circumvention clauses. The concern among digital rights groups is that as age verification laws proliferate and users increasingly turn to VPNs to avoid them, lawmakers may revisit the idea of penalizing VPN use in this context. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that such measures could set a dangerous precedent, potentially extending to other areas of online regulation beyond adult content.
The Enforcement Puzzle and the Role of Technology Companies
Even without VPN bans, enforcing age verification laws presents significant practical difficulties. VPN usage has surged in states with active age verification mandates. Data from VPN providers consistently shows spikes in new subscriptions and usage in states like Texas and Virginia following the implementation of their respective laws. This pattern suggests that a substantial portion of users simply route around the restrictions rather than comply with them.
Technology companies are caught in the middle. Apple and Google, which control the dominant mobile operating systems, have faced calls from legislators to build age verification directly into their platforms. Device-level or operating-system-level age assurance could theoretically reduce the need for site-by-site ID checks, but both companies have been cautious about taking on that role, citing privacy concerns and the complexity of accurately verifying age without creating new surveillance risks. The United Kingdom’s approach under its Online Safety Act, which places verification obligations on platforms rather than users, has been closely watched by U.S. policymakers as a potential model.
What Happens Next in Wisconsin — and Beyond
The amended Wisconsin bill now moves to the state Senate, where it is expected to receive a vote in the coming weeks. Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, has not publicly committed to signing or vetoing the measure. Even if the bill becomes law, it will almost certainly face legal challenges, particularly given the pending Supreme Court decision in the Texas case.
The episode in Wisconsin has served as a stress test for the boundaries of age verification legislation. The speed with which the VPN ban was inserted and then removed illustrates how quickly the politics of online regulation can shift when public attention focuses on the details. For privacy advocates, the reversal was a win, but a provisional one. The underlying tension between protecting minors and preserving adult privacy rights online remains unresolved, and state legislatures across the country are continuing to experiment with new approaches.
Industry observers expect the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton to reshape the entire debate. If the court upholds Texas’s law, the floodgates could open for even more aggressive state mandates — potentially including renewed attempts to restrict VPN use. If the court strikes the law down on First Amendment grounds, many existing statutes could be rendered unenforceable, sending lawmakers back to the drawing board. Either way, the Wisconsin saga has made one thing clear: the details of these bills matter enormously, and the line between child safety and civil liberties is thinner than many legislators initially assumed.