Do VPN providers keep logs that could be compelled by courts to identify users?
Executive summary
VPN providers sometimes keep data that courts can compel; several providers have faced subpoenas and police raids that tested their claims, and independent audits or court outcomes are the clearest evidence of whether a “no‑logs” promise is real (examples: PIA and OVPN court tests; audits and transparency reports cited by multiple outlets) [1] [2] [3].
1. No‑logs is a legal and technical claim — not an ironclad shield
VPN vendors advertise “no‑logs,” but that phrase covers different technical practices and legal realities: some providers genuinely design systems that avoid storing connection or activity data, while others retain identifiers that could be produced under legal process [4] [5]. Jurisdiction matters because domestic laws or retention requirements can force a company to keep or hand over records if they exist [4] [5].
2. Real‑world court tests are the strongest proof for users
Independent audits and court proceedings provide the best public evidence. Private Internet Access (PIA) has been subpoenaed multiple times and reportedly had no logs to hand over in U.S. cases, which outlets cite as verification of its no‑logs practice [1] [6] [7]. OVPN likewise won a court order challenge that supported its no‑logs stance [8] [2]. Those outcomes show some providers truly do not retain the data law enforcement sought [1] [2].
3. Subpoenas, warrants and gag orders still happen — and can be hidden
VPNs receive two main types of requests: DMCA/copyright notices and law‑enforcement requests. Providers publish transparency reports or use warrant canaries to signal requests, but gag orders can legally prohibit disclosure; that practice complicates public assessment of how often providers comply or are compelled [9] [5]. Some companies have explicitly said they would comply with binding court orders in their jurisdiction if appeals fail, even while maintaining a no‑logs claim [10].
4. Audits and “RAM‑only” infrastructure change the risk calculus
Recent industry trends make verification easier: third‑party audits by firms like Cure53 or big accounting houses, and server designs that run from RAM (which wipes on reboot) are now common markers auditors and journalists use to assess claims [4] [3]. SafePaper’s 2025 audit and other reporting highlight that audits plus jurisdiction and RAM‑only tech are the best indicators a provider can’t produce logs even if asked [3] [4].
5. Not all “no‑logs” claims are equal — some providers were exposed
Reporting records include cases where providers’ claims failed scrutiny: some companies were later shown to have logged data that became available to authorities, undermining their marketing [2]. That history means a user must judge vendors on verifiable tests (audits, court outcomes, transparency reports) rather than slogans alone [6] [2].
6. Practical advice for users who want plausible deniability
Look for multiple signals: independent audits or “reasonable assurance” reports, public court rulings or transparency reports, RAM‑only server architecture, and a favorable jurisdiction. Sources cited by industry coverage recommend cross‑checking subpoena/raid history and recent audits before trusting a no‑logs claim [4] [3] [9].
7. Competing perspectives and limitations in the reporting
Some outlets emphasize that court wins (PIA, OVPN) prove no‑logs in practice [1] [8] [2]. Others warn that companies can change policies, that audits vary in scope, and that a provider’s statement about complying with legal orders can alarm users who expect absolute privacy [10] [4]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, universal list of which vendors would definitely refuse or be legally unable to comply in every jurisdiction — that determination is case‑specific and depends on technical design plus local law (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line: courts can compel providers to hand over logs — if those logs exist
When VPNs keep connection or usage records, courts or subpoenas can obtain them; when providers truly do not retain such logs and have verifiable audits or favorable court rulings, there is nothing to hand over [1] [6] [2]. Users must judge providers by independent tests, legal history, infrastructure design, and transparency reports rather than marketing alone [3] [9].