Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which VPNs have the strongest track record against government subpoenas?
Executive summary
Real-world tests of VPNs against subpoenas are limited but instructive: Private Internet Access (PIA) has court records showing it could not produce user logs when subpoenaed, and ExpressVPN reports receiving hundreds of legal requests in H1 2025 and says its no-logs systems left “nothing to share” [1] [2]. Industry commentators warn that jurisdiction and prior cooperation incidents (e.g., IPVanish) matter as much as written policies when assessing a provider’s ability to resist government orders [3] [1].
1. Why “no-logs” claims aren’t the whole story
A provider’s public no-logs policy is necessary but not sufficient to judge resistance to subpoenas: what matters is whether logs actually exist, the company’s legal jurisdiction, prior real-world responses to demands, and independent audits — all of which vary across vendors [4] [5]. TechSpot’s roundup highlights cases where a vendor (PIA) was subpoenaed but could not hand over connection logs because none were retained, offering one of the few concrete court-verified examples [1].
2. Concrete wins: PIA’s subpoena history
Private Internet Access has documented instances in which U.S. law enforcement subpoenas requested customer-identifying logs and the provider could not comply because it did not retain the relevant logs; those court documents are used as evidence that some VPNs’ no-logs promises have been tested in practice [1]. This is often cited as a rare, verifiable precedent showing a VPN’s policy held up in a legal process.
3. Corporate transparency and repeat requests: ExpressVPN’s reporting
ExpressVPN publicly reports receiving hundreds of formal legal requests in a single six-month period (374 between Jan–Jun 2025) and states it provided nothing because of its no-logs infrastructure; the company points to independent audits and open-source components as supporting evidence [2]. That transparency report documents volume of requests but is still a company claim about outcomes — useful context but not an independent legal ruling [2].
4. Jurisdiction matters — and it’s contested
Where a VPN is headquartered affects legal exposure: companies in the U.S. or other intelligence-alliance countries face different legal pressures than those in places with stronger privacy protections, and commentators argue U.S.-based VPNs are at higher risk of compelled cooperation [3] [6]. ExpressVPN emphasizes its British Virgin Islands base as a jurisdictional advantage against routine subpoenas [7].
5. Past cooperation cases warn against blind trust
Historical incidents undermine blanket trust: CNET notes that some U.S.-based services cooperated with law enforcement (IPVanish) or were gagged (Riseup), showing that corporate promises can break under legal pressure or secret orders [3]. These episodes illustrate that a provider’s legal exposure and past behavior are essential pieces of evidence when assessing its resistance to government demands.
6. Independent audits, transparency reports, and canaries: strengths and limits
Independent audits and transparency reports strengthen a vendor’s credibility but don’t prove immunity from future subpoenas or secret orders; they show policies and technical setups at audit time [1] [2]. Warrant canaries and consolidated transparency metrics can help, but reporting practices vary and may be constrained by gag orders or changes in legal regimes [6] [2].
7. Practical guidance for users choosing a VPN to resist subpoenas
Prioritize vendors with court-tested no-logs outcomes (e.g., PIA court cases), recent independent audits, clear transparency reporting about legal requests, and jurisdictional distance from intrusive data-retention regimes [1] [2] [6]. Also weigh documented past cooperation incidents as red flags — a U.S. headquarters or a history of complying in secret are relevant negatives [3].
8. Limits of current public reporting and remaining unknowns
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, independently verified list ranking every major VPN by subpoena resistance; much evidence is company-authored reporting or selective court records (available sources do not mention a full independent registry). Analysts like redact.dev compile audits and incidents to help compare providers, but those syntheses depend on public disclosures and investigative reporting, which can be incomplete [5].
Bottom line: few vendors have been legally tested in public court records; PIA is a documented example of a provider that could not produce logs when subpoenaed, while ExpressVPN’s transparency reporting claims many requests yielded nothing to share — both facts should be weighed alongside jurisdiction, audits, and historical cooperation incidents when assessing which VPNs have the “strongest track record” against government subpoenas [1] [2] [3].