Has ProtonVPN ever complied with or challenged a court order to hand over user data in any jurisdiction?

1. How Proton states the rules: Swiss courts control what can be compelled

Proton’s policy is explicit: under Swiss law the company “cannot legally comply with foreign requests that are not supported by a Swiss court order,” and it says it is illegal for Proton to comply with any request unless supported by a Swiss court order ^{[3] [6]}. Proton’s transparency materials and law-enforcement guidance reiterate that law-enforcement requests normally need to be channelled through Swiss authorities or a Swiss court to be binding ^{[3] [7]}.

2. Proton’s transparency numbers and denials

Proton publishes transparency reports and its 2024 summary — as reported by CNET and Proton’s site — states it received 27 legal orders in 2024 and denied all 27, and other reporting cites dozens of requests that were refused in recent years ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Proton also says “to date, we have not received any court order” specifically triggering compelled ProtonVPN logging, per its privacy-policy explanation ^[1].

3. The counterpoint: prior Swiss-court compelled logging of ProtonMail accounts

Journalistic reporting has documented at least one high‑profile case where ProtonMail (the sister service) was ordered by a Swiss court to log IP addresses for a specific account, after which data was produced to investigators; Wired reported ProtonMail amended policy after such a court action ^[4]. Legal analysts emphasize that because Proton is Swiss, the same mechanism — a Swiss court order — can force targeted logging if the court demands it ^{[4] [6]}.

4. What that means for ProtonVPN: technically limited but legally vulnerable

Proton argues that its technical design minimizes stored data (it says the only retained item is a timestamp of last login), so in many cases there is little or nothing to hand over; independent auditors and commentators have noted Proton’s no‑logs posture and audits ^{[1] [8]}. But commentators and comparison sites point out there have been “targeted logging” instances when Swiss courts compelled Proton to log or change logging behavior for named users — meaning a VPN user is not immune if a Swiss court orders specific logging ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Disagreement in coverage: company claims vs. third‑party summaries

Proton’s official line emphasizes legal protections in Switzerland and records denials of foreign requests ^{[3] [1]}. Third‑party coverage splits: some outlets (CNET, TechRadar excerpts of audits) report Proton denied recent orders and has independent audits supporting its no‑logs claims ^{[2] [8]}, while other writers highlight past Swiss‑ordered logging of ProtonMail users as evidence Proton can be compelled under Swiss law ^{[4] [5]}. Both perspectives are supported in the record: Proton’s transparency reports show refusals, and reporting documents at least one Swiss court‑ordered logging in the company family ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Practical takeaway for users: design, jurisdiction and targeted orders matter

If you rely on ProtonVPN because of its Swiss jurisdiction and no‑logs design, current Proton material and audits say the service resists and frequently denies foreign requests and stores minimal session data ^{[3] [1] [8]}. However, available reporting also documents that Swiss courts have in the past ordered ProtonMail to log IPs for specific accounts, demonstrating a legal path exists for targeted disclosure if a Swiss court issues a binding order for a named user ^{[4] [6] [5]}. Users should treat “no‑logs” as a combination of technical architecture plus legal circumstance, not an absolute immunity ^{[1] [6]}.

Limitations and note on sources: available sources do not mention every specific ProtonVPN court order by date or case number; the evidence in these materials centers on Proton’s public transparency claims, independent audits, and reporting about ProtonMail’s past Swiss court‑ordered logging ^{[1] [8] [4]}.