UK Lords propose ban on VPNs for children

• House of Lords Peers propose VPN ban for kids
• VPN providers would have to introduce age verification measures
• The bill must still clear the Commons to become law

A cross-party group of House of Lords Peers has tabled an amendment that would ban children in the UK from using VPNs. If passed, the government would have to enforce the restrictions within 12 months.

Under the new rules, VPN providers would be forced to verify the age of all UK users, employing "highly effective" age-assurance methods to make sure no one using the service is under 18.

The government would also be tasked with establishing a monitoring regime, including "effective enforcement" measures that would penalize non-compliant companies.

The requirements would apply to any VPN service that markets itself to UK consumers or is used by a "significant number" of people in the country.

In their explanatory note, the peers wrote: "This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote and protect children’s wellbeing, and to further support child protective measures in the Online Safety Act, by prohibiting the provision to children in the United Kingdom of VPN services which can facilitate evasion of OSA age-gating processes."

This proposal is being considered at the Report Stage of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the House of Lords. To become law, the amendment must still be voted through both the Lords and the House of Commons.

What's next?

This proposal is likely to cause significant concern among the privacy and cybersecurity community in the UK. "Highly effective" age verification typically requires people to submit government-issued ID or facial scans, a requirement that dramatically undermines the privacy that VPNs are designed to provide.

The amendment has been designed with the Online Safety Act specifically in mind and addresses fears that people have turned to the best VPNs and free VPNs to sidestep age verification measures.

While the amendment has cross-bench support in the House of Lords, it still faces an uncertain future.

In another proposed amendment, Peers have suggested that: "Any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting… and viewing of CSAM using that device."

The proposal has been called "Orwellian in scope" by James Baker, who works for Open Rights Group. "Rather than imposing blanket bans or invasive monitoring, there are smarter, more liberal ways to tackle online harms," he wrote.

We will continue to monitor the process, including its likely resistance in the House of Commons, and reach out to the peers responsible for introducing the amendment for comment.

More to follow...