How does Mullvad’s no‑logs policy compare legally to other VPNs like NordVPN or Proton in practice?
Executive summary
Mullvad’s no‑logs policy is legally robust in practice because it combines an extremely minimal collection model (anonymous tokens, no email), RAM‑only servers, and public, repeatable audits — but its Swedish jurisdiction and potential legal compulsion differ from NordVPN (Panama) and Proton (Switzerland), which trade absolute anonymity features for stronger jurisdictional legal insulation and broader corporate footprints [1] [2] [3].
1. What "no‑logs" means on paper versus in court
All three providers publish strict no‑logs policies and have undergone independent audits to verify their claims, but “no‑logs” is a contractual and technical promise, not an ironclad legal shield: independent audits confirm practices (or note gaps) rather than immunize a company from lawful orders in its home country [4] [5] [6].
2. Jurisdiction is the practical difference
Jurisdiction is the clearest legal distinction: NordVPN is headquartered in Panama, a jurisdiction without mandatory data‑retention laws and outside major intelligence alliances, giving it an extra layer of legal insulation; Proton is based in Switzerland, famed for strong privacy laws; Mullvad operates from Sweden, which has solid privacy practices but sits in a European legal ecosystem where courts can compel assistance under EU frameworks — a material practical difference when legal requests arrive [7] [2] [8].
3. Data minimization and anonymity as defensive design
Mullvad goes further than most on data minimization by allowing account creation with a generated token and no email, explicitly not storing DNS requests, IP addresses, timestamps, or bandwidth logs; that design reduces what can be handed over even if pressured by authorities because there is little to produce [1] [2]. Proton and NordVPN also minimize logs and use RAM‑only servers, but Proton typically ties accounts to at least pseudonymous credentials (email) and NordVPN maintains some minimal technical metadata in certain contexts, per their policies and audits [9] [1] [4].
4. Technical mitigations: RAM‑only servers and audits
All three vendors have adopted RAM‑only server architectures to ensure volatile memory clears on reboot, a technical control that limits post‑seizure data recovery; independent auditing firms have repeatedly assessed these claims, providing stronger practical credibility to the no‑logs promises [4] [5] [6]. Audits strengthen trust in practice but are not equal to legal immunity — they document that the provider does not retain the kinds of logs that would meaningfully identify users [4] [6].
5. Track record under legal requests and transparency
Proton has publicly reported turning down requests due to lack of logs and benefits from Swiss legal protections that complicate foreign coercion, which bolsters its practical resistance to data disclosure; Mullvad’s strategy is to have nothing to give (no email, no logs) and to be transparent about how laws affect them, while NordVPN emphasizes Panama’s non‑retention regime and its audited no‑logs claims [9] [7] [1]. None of the sources document a definitive court test where Mullvad, Proton, or NordVPN was forced to produce user activity logs that identified a customer — audits and public statements are the primary evidence available [9] [6] [4].
6. How to read “better” in practice: tradeoffs
Practically, Mullvad is architected for maximum plausible deniability: account anonymity plus minimal retained data reduces legal exposure to the bare minimum, which is attractive for anonymity‑first users [1]. Proton and NordVPN provide comparable technical protections with stronger jurisdictional defenses (Switzerland, Panama) and sometimes more user‑friendly account models; those jurisdictions can make it harder for foreign authorities to compel disclosure, even if the provider is compelled domestically [2] [7].
7. Bottom line and caveats
The operational difference in practice is not a single “winner”: Mullvad’s policy and account model make it the hardest target for forensic or legal identification because it intentionally collects almost nothing, while Proton and NordVPN pair strong no‑logs architectures with jurisdictions that provide additional legal barriers to disclosure; independent audits and RAM‑only servers are common practical protections across the three, but none offer absolute legal immunity — reporting does not show a definitive court precedent breaking any provider’s no‑logs promise [1] [3] [4].