How do VPN no-logs policies hold up in court — which providers lost or won subpoenas?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Court-tested “no-logs” claims have both been upheld and pierced: Windscribe’s founder had criminal charges dismissed in April 2025 after the company could not provide user data [1] [2], while multiple long-documented incidents show other providers either produced data or had nothing to hand over when subpoenaed—Private Internet Access repeatedly had no logs to give in 2016 and 2018, and OVPN successfully defended its claim in a 2020 Swedish case [3] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive list of every subpoena outcome; reporting focuses on notable wins (OVPN, PIA, Windscribe) and at least one counterexample where logs were produced (PureVPN) [5] [6] [7].
1. What “court-tested” actually means
When journalists say a no-logs policy has been “proven” in court they mean real legal actions—subpoenas, server seizures or trials—showed either that a provider had no usable data or that court records contradict a vendor’s privacy statement. Redact.dev and other industry summaries explicitly recommend searching for subpoenas, raids and transparency reports as the only hard evidence of how policies hold up in practice [8]. These events are rare but decisive: they move a provider’s claim from marketing copy to demonstrable behavior under legal pressure [8].
2. Clear wins: providers that came up empty
Private Internet Access (PIA) is the most-cited example of a provider whose no-logs stance was tested and “came up empty.” Public court filings and server-seizure reports from 2016 and 2018 show PIA could not produce user activity logs when authorities sought them [3] [4] [9]. OVPN also “won” a high-profile Swedish case in 2020: Rights Alliance lawyers demanded user data tied to an IP address, and courts found OVPN had no logs to hand over [5]. These incidents are used repeatedly in buyer guides and reviews as the strongest real-world evidence that certain VPN architectures and practices (RAM-only servers, audited systems) can make no-logs meaningful [8] [9].
3. Not all “no-logs” claims survive scrutiny
Reporting also documents instances where provider behavior contradicted marketing. Cyberinsider’s 2024 piece cites a Massachusetts court case that indicates PureVPN handed over logs, undermining its zero-log claim [7]. Industry coverage makes clear that without independent audits, server architecture transparency, or public court records, users must still weigh trust in a provider’s word versus demonstrated outcomes [8] [7].
4. Recent, high-profile vindication: Windscribe
A recent illustrative case ended with Greece dismissing criminal charges against Windscribe’s founder in April 2025 after prosecutors could not link the alleged offense to evidence held by the company; reporting credits Windscribe’s no-logs practice as central to that dismissal [1] [2]. Tech coverage frames the outcome as reinforcing that when a provider truly does not retain logs, it often cannot be compelled to produce user activity—though the degree to which that becomes formal precedent is left to court-by-court interpretation [10] [2].
5. How to judge providers going forward
Analysts recommend three concrete checks: look for independent audits and what they cover, prefer RAM-only server architecture or TrustedServer-like models that erase state on reboot, and search public court records or transparency reports for past subpoenas and server-seizures [8] [9]. Reviews and guides emphasize that multiple real-world tests—subpoenas that yield nothing, server seizures with no data, and successful court defenses—carry far more weight than marketing copy alone [8] [6].
6. Limits, disagreements and hidden incentives
Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative list of every court victory or defeat. Coverage tends to amplify providers with good PR or clear court records (PIA, OVPN, Windscribe) while exposing cases where companies were forced to produce data (PureVPN) or where jurisdictional law and company structure complicate outcomes [7] [5] [3]. Industry reviews and vendors both have commercial motives to portray outcomes favorably; independent reporting and court documents remain the essential corrective [8] [6].
7. Bottom line for users
Real-world legal tests matter: when subpoenas and seizures have been publicized, they reveal which services truly lacked logs and which did not. PIA and OVPN are repeatedly cited as tests that favored the no-logs claim, Windscribe won a 2025 criminal-dismissal tied to its policy, and other cases have contradicted vendors’ marketing [3] [5] [1] [7]. Consumers should demand audits, seek transparency reports, and treat courtroom outcomes as decisive evidence rather than slogans [8] [9].