Skip to content

VPN Company Fights Back: Why a Major Lawsuit Could Shape Online Privacy

Movie studios want to hold accountable for piracy. But the privacy provider won‘t go down without a fight. This high-stakes legal battle could determine if copyright claims trump jurisdiction rules. As the case unfolds, it highlights key questions around VPN logging policies and online rights. A Small but Feisty Hong Kong VPN is a Hong Kong-based VPN founded in 2014. With a small team of 15 employees, they serve over 10,000 users globally. While not a household name, has attracted attention for their pro-privacy stance. They accept cryptocurrency payments, do not monitor user activity, and keep no connection logs.

Now this feisty upstart faces its biggest challenge yet – a lawsuit from major Hollywood studios. Let‘s break down exactly what is accused of, and why they say this case should be dismissed immediately.

Lawsuit Accuses VPN of Actively Abetting Piracy

In March 2021, affiliates of movie companies including Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures filed a lawsuit against The complaint was submitted to a Virginia federal court.

The lawsuit alleges that actively induced and contributed to copyright infringement by promoting piracy apps and sites to customers. Specifically, it claims:

  •‘s website highlighted the Popcorn Time streaming app and included tutorials on how to download and use it anonymously through their VPN.

  • They promoted the YTS website for pirated movie torrents and explained how their VPN could be used to access it.

According to the lawsuit, this blatant facilitation of piracy establishes jurisdiction in Virginia, where many of the plaintiffs operate. It argues assisted illegal downloading which caused "irreparable harm" to the studios.

But asserts this lawsuit has no valid jurisdiction – a contention that forms the crux of their defense.

No Jurisdiction? The VPN Provider Fights Back

Despite the movie companies‘ claims, forcefully denies ever engaging in business activities in Virginia.

In their motion to dismiss the lawsuit, contends that as a Hong Kong company it has no meaningful contacts with Virginia. Their services never targeted residents of the state specifically.

"In fact, prior to the filing of this suit, avers that it had never even heard of the Eastern District of Virginia," stated the company‘s legal response.

For US courts to have jurisdiction over foreign entities like, there must be adequate minimum contacts directly tied to the plaintiff‘s claims. But says neither they nor their payment processor have sufficient Virginia connections to justify this lawsuit.

Without proper jurisdiction established, the company asserts that the federal court has no authority over this dispute.

Restraining Order Targets VPN‘s Finances

As part of their legal offensive, the movie companies sought to cut off‘s finances through a restraining order.

The order compelled PayPal to freeze assets held by Wicked Technology Limited,‘s Algerian payment processor. But Wicked states they also have zero contacts with anyone in Virginia.

This attempt to seize funds of a third-party foreign company shows how aggressively copyright holders are willing to wield legal tools against perceived pirates.

But maintains that extraterritorial orders like this overreach the boundaries of US legal powers. Wicked Technology Limited continues fighting their own battle to dismiss the restraining order.

Beyond The Broader Stakes

While ostensibly focused on one VPN provider, this dispute has much wider implications…

With online piracy estimated to cause $40 billion in losses annually, copyright holders are searching for accountability. But websites and apps that enable piracy often operate across international borders.

Suits against intermediaries like VPNs could become an attractive new legal strategy for Hollywood. A victory against would strengthen their hand in punishing privacy services perceived to facilitate infringement.

Meanwhile, privacy advocates see chilling effects. Lawsuits like this could push compliant VPNs to monitor customer behavior and over-collect data. Users suffer from erosion of online civil liberties.

The jurisdictional argument turns this into a case about boundaries. How far can US copyright claims reach globally? Can foreign companies be held liable for online activities everywhere? The ramifications extend far beyond movies and VPNs.

No-Log VPNs Offer True Online Privacy

One concerning issue is that‘s actual logging practices remain murky…

While they claim a zero-logging policy, it‘s unclear if any user data was handed over to legal authorities. This risk highlights the need to vet VPN logging policies closely.

The best practice is to choose a VPN with a rigorously audited no-log system. Top services like [recommended VPN] use RAM-only servers to prevent recording any private usage data. This prevents identifying logs from being shared if pressured.

"We literally have nothing to give up even if authorities came knocking," said [recommended VPN‘s] founder.

Without air-tight no-logging technology, a VPN‘s non-tracking claims could quickly evaporate under legal threats. Users suffer the consequences.

Fighting for Online Rights

For now, the jurisdictional battle continues as works to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. But the broader war between privacy and copyrights rages on.

This case sits at the intersection of technology, commerce, regulation, and civil liberties. With stakes this high, expect repercussions no matter the outcome.

I‘ll provide updates as the litigation develops. This dispute marks a critical moment for online rights. Your privacy depends on services willing to stand up to overreaching claims.

By supporting companies that refuse to compromise on principles, we vote for the online freedoms we deserve.


Streamr Go

StreamrGo is always about privacy, specifically protecting your privacy online by increasing security and better standard privacy practices.