Disaster Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect Next Week

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect Next Week​

By Rindala Alajaji
April 30, 2026





For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky age-verification mandate, and, without fail, Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage surges as residents scramble to maintain their privacy and anonymity. We've seen this everywhere—from states like Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Utah, to countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Indonesia.

Instead of realizing that mass surveillance and age gates aren't exactly crowd favorites, Utah lawmakers have decided that VPNs themselves are the real issue.

Next week, on May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine digital privacy rights.

What the Bill Does

Formally known as the “Online Age Verification Amendments,” Senate Bill 73 (SB 73) was signed by Governor Spencer Cox on March 19, 2026. While the majority of the bill consists of provisions related to a 2% tax on revenues from online adult content that is set to take effect in October, one of the more immediate concerns for EFF is the section regulating VPN access, which goes into effect this coming Wednesday.

The VPN Provisions​

The new law explicitly addresses VPN use in Section 14, which amends Section 78B-3-1002 of existing Utah statutes in two primary ways:

  1. Regulation based on physical location: Under the law, an individual is considered to be accessing a website from Utah if they are physically located there, regardless of whether they use a VPN, proxy server, or other means to disguise their geographic location.
  2. Ban on sharing VPN instructions: Commercial entities that host "a substantial portion of material harmful to minors" are now prohibited from facilitating or encouraging the use of a VPN to bypass age checks. This includes providing instructions on how to use a VPN or providing the means to circumvent geofencing.
By holding companies liable for verifying the age of anyone physically in Utah, even those using a VPN, the law creates a massive "liability trap." Just like we argued in the case of the Wisconsin bill, if a website cannot reliably detect a VPN user's true location and the law requires it to do so for all users in a particular state, then the legal risk could push the site to either ban all known VPN IPs, or to mandate age verification for every visitor globally. This would subject millions of users to invasive identity checks or blocks to their VPN use, regardless of where they actually live.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In practice, SB 73 is different from the Wisconsin proposal in that it stops short of a total VPN ban. Instead, it discourages using VPNs by imposing the liability described above and by muzzling the websites themselves from sharing information about VPNs. This raises significant First Amendment concerns, as it prevents platforms from providing basic, truthful information about a lawful privacy tool to their users.

Unlike previous drafts seen in other states, SB 73 doesn't explicitly ban the use of a VPN. Under a "don't ask, don't tell" style of enforcement, websites likely only have an obligation to ask for proof of age if they actually learn that a user is physically in Utah and using a VPN. If a site doesn’t know a user is in Utah, their broader obligation to police VPNs remains murky. So, while SB 73 isn’t as extreme as the discarded Wisconsin proposal, it remains a dangerous precedent.

Technical Feasibility

Then there is also the question of technical feasibility: Blocking all known VPN and proxy IP addresses is a technical whack-a-mole that likely no company can win. Providers add new IP addresses constantly, and no comprehensive blocklist exists. Complying with Utah’s requirements would require impossible technical feats.

The internet is built to, and will always, route around censorship. If Utah successfully hampers commercial VPN providers, motivated users will transition to non-commercial proxies, private tunnels through cloud services like AWS, or residential proxies that are virtually indistinguishable from standard home traffic. These workarounds will emerge within hours of the law taking effect. Meanwhile, the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security.

These provisions won't stop a tech-savvy teenager, but they certainly will impact the privacy of every regular Utah resident who just wants to keep their data out of the hands of brokers or malicious actors.

Uncharted Territory

Lawmakers have watched age-verification mandates fail and, instead of reconsidering the approach, have decided to wage war on privacy itself. As the Cato Institute states:

“The point is that when an internet policy can be avoided by a relatively common technology that often provides significant privacy and security benefits, maybe the policy is the problem. Age verification regimes do plenty of damage to online speech and privacy, but attacking VPNs to try to keep them from being circumvented is doubling down on this damaging approach."
Attacks on VPNs are, at their core, attacks on the tools that enable digital privacy. Utah is setting a precedent that prioritizes government control over the fundamental architecture of a private and secure internet, and it won’t stop at the state’s borders. Regulators in countries outside the U.S. are still eyeing VPN restrictions, with the UK Children’s Commissioner calling VPNs a “loophole that needs closing” and the French Minister Delegate for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Affairs saying VPNs are “the next topic on my list” after the country enacted a ban on social media for kids under 15.

As this law goes into effect next week, we are entering uncharted territory. Lawmakers who can’t distinguish between a security tool and a "loophole" are now writing the rules for one of the most complex infrastructures on Earth. And we can assure that the result won't be a safer internet, only an increasingly less private one.

The Bill: https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/SB0073.html
 
  1. Regulation based on physical location: Under the law, an individual is considered to be accessing a website from Utah if they are physically located there, regardless of whether they use a VPN, proxy server, or other means to disguise their geographic location.
  2. Ban on sharing VPN instructions: Commercial entities that host "a substantial portion of material harmful to minors" are now prohibited from facilitating or encouraging the use of a VPN to bypass age checks. This includes providing instructions on how to use a VPN or providing the means to circumvent geofencing.
So 1 is unenforceable and the 2 has no practical effect other than that it will probably lead to a Streisand effect where a bunch of people download VPNs because the government is begging them not to
 
"lol" said the scorpion, "lmao".

Russia is currently trying to ban VPNs too, and it's going about as well as you'd expect. They did get most major commercial ones, but barely anyone was using those anyway. The biggest loss was Windscribe, which a lot of people used due to their free 10GB plan.

Right now the way to bypass the blocks is either by getting a VPS and setting up a VLESS or Trojan proxy, or paying some Chinese guy to do it for you. Those fucks figured it all out years ago with the GFW.

The gov, no matter which one, is ontologically retarded. They probably know that it isn't feasible to try and restrict the flow of information (short of cutting yourself off from the global capital-I Internet), because there will always be a way around it. But they're too stubborn to stop. They will tell you they're doing it to "protect children", or "fight terrorism", or "prevent online toxicity", or whatever the fuck else. But at the end of the day, they're simply scared of not being able to control something. That's all there is to it.
 
That went out the window after 9/11, you're late to the party.

Mormons rejoice, for the evils of internet pornography will be stomped out!
Inshallah, the pornrunners of Las Vegas stand ready to defy man and Mormon Jesus to let Young Jebediah see titties before he’s 18!
 
And so the enshittification of the internet continues...
Honestly everything post-2000s on the internet is complete garbage, with a few small exceptions.

I miss the days of personal websites, Flash games and animations, and hanging up the phone to use the internet.
 
Toothless faggot shit. Porn sites will just geo block Utahns. They won't be missing much, mountain jews don't spend money, so no loss in revenue.

Instead of posturing, Spencer Cocks should go after the tech companies at the point of the mountain that keep hiring street shitters over local college students.
 
Five minutes with a quick VPS setup in [literally any country anywhere in the world] and a Wireguard client immediately makes all of this moot. And I mean for literally all fucking traffic. My dirt-cheap Mikrotik router supports Wireguard out of the box and can be configured to literally shunt all traffic through it. What do these dumb faggots expect to accomplish with this bullshit?

"We think you're using a VPN." "Neat. Prove it."

Fucking morons.
 
I miss the days of personal websites, Flash games and animations, and hanging up the phone to use the internet.
The internet started going to crap when the "smartphone" and "social media" went big. There's still some "Web 1.0" sites around (and wiby.me is at least one search of them).
 
Maybe what both the legislatures and courts need are technology-smart people who can explain what's going on in layman's terms, so laws and judicial actions can properly address the issues of concern while leaving other areas alone, unlike the 'one-size-fits-all' laws.
On paper this sounds like a career for me, in the "waow I can combine my autistic interests!" way. But I know in reality it'll be more like working in customer service, talking to brick walls who don't understand and don't want to understand. Politicians, legislators and court types hire consultants to validate their ill-conceived ideas by any means possible, not challenge their misconceptions. And because you're a government contractor, both the state and taxpayers despise you for being a cost center. Not surprising that this isn't a promising industry unless governments force in legislation that makes this position mandatory.
Five minutes with a quick VPS setup in [literally any country anywhere in the world] and a Wireguard client immediately makes all of this moot. And I mean for literally all fucking traffic. My dirt-cheap Mikrotik router supports Wireguard out of the box and can be configured to literally shunt all traffic through it. What do these dumb faggots expect to accomplish with this bullshit?

"We think you're using a VPN." "Neat. Prove it."
Most VPN protocols including vanilla WireGuard announce that you're using a VPN to every site you visit. You can obfuscate that signal, but some sites block "datacenter" IP ranges associated with VPS hosts. Realistically that risk isn't too great because the IP registries aren't objective facts, blocking non-residential IPs would also hit commercial/enterprise users, and IPv4 shortage means a lot of addresses are being shared. They could take a page out of Russia and China's books and invest in deep packet inspection, basically making ISPs analyze all of the traffic passing through their infrastructure to see if any of it corresponds to "VPN usage" habits. Russian and Chinese hackers are ahead of their governments, so nothing is undefeatable, but making it undefeatable isn't the goal. Demoralizing the average tech-unaware normie is.
 
"We think you're using a VPN." "Neat. Prove it."
Investigations flounder whenever it gets to this point. PIA had that one case in 2018 where the feds just couldn't pinpoint someone and had to give up. I'm sure that there's quite a few cases we never hear about where they start at the suspect and just don't have a trail to follow.

Besides, the States have no reasonable ability to close this off, either actively or otherwise and definitely not in a way that won't get hit by the courts, and they know this. It's why there's no actual enforcement mechanism. This bill is basically just an officialized bitch fit.
 
Funny how I predicted this exact thing happening. Republicans pushing for the most unpopular and dystopian fucking legislation in existence under the guise of "protecting the heckin children". Vance might as well just give up on 2028 because there is no fucking way anyone who isn't a boomer is voting Republican anymore.
 
Funny how I predicted this exact thing happening. Republicans pushing for the most unpopular and dystopian fucking legislation in existence under the guise of "protecting the heckin children". Vance might as well just give up on 2028 because there is no fucking way anyone who isn't a boomer is voting Republican anymore.
Post hands you faggot
 
Most VPN protocols including vanilla WireGuard announce that you're using a VPN to every site you visit.
That can be turned off, in source if necessary.
You can obfuscate that signal, but some sites block "datacenter" IP ranges associated with VPS hosts.
Meet "my friend Bob's house, my convenient VPS host." Cheap, unmetered symmetric gigabit broadband is becoming ubiquitous. Even shitty [rural area where I live] has 2 gigabit up/down for $99/mo. now. My own metrics show I slurped 35TB last month and uploaded 5-6TB. They block/censor nothing. My friend across town could literally just exchange WG configs with me and we could be each other's exit points.

What are world governments and ISPs going to do, start blacklisting entire ISPs or cities, for daring to encrypt their traffic?

I know the goal is to "demonize" it for the normies, but it doesn't work when these laws are so asinine the neighborhood 9-year-old nerd kid can drive a truck through the holes. Even grandma & grandpa understand "hey that new internet law turns off all that privacy stuff, but then again my 9-year-old grandson just came over and fixed it anyway and said the law was retarded, guess it must not have been very good."
 
I know the goal is to "demonize" it for the normies, but it doesn't work when these laws are so asinine the neighborhood 9-year-old nerd kid can drive a truck through the holes. Even grandma & grandpa understand "hey that new internet law turns off all that privacy stuff, but then again my 9-year-old grandson just came over and fixed it anyway and said the law was retarded, guess it must not have been very good."
You're overestimating the level of tech knowledge/willingness to experiment the average Western normie has and understimating governments' ability to strong-arm ISPs/network security providers like Cloudflare into letting them snoop on traffic, but you're right that the laws are asinine. Not because they're easy to bypass, but because they're structurally flawed and have no understanding of the underlying technology. These retards are attempting Eurocrat trickology that claims whatever they sign into the books becomes reality.

Our normies aren't as hardened as the Russian/Chinese because our brains have been programmed by propaganda that praises our nations for being the most free and just in the world. Anything with bipartisan support in a Good Western Country is Objectively Correct to them. Normies will go "well, I guess it's safe for the keeeeds!", hand over their IDs, and accept the new normal.
 
Normies will go "well, I guess it's safe for the keeeeds!", hand over their IDs, and accept the new normal.
Not when their own kids literally tell them it's bullshit.

That's the Achilles' heel of all this -- it's completely dependent on people accepting it at face value, and in this country, normies don't trust the government about technology. They trust their nerdy kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom