A VPN ban would fundamentally disrupt essential digital operations
Banning VPNs is removing a critical layer of infrastructure that enables people to work securely, communicate efficiently, and scale operations without borders. Businesses run hundreds of daily operations over public networks. VPNs provide the encrypted tunnel that protects every bit of that data moving between locations, departments, and stakeholders. Without them, the open internet becomes a vulnerability.
Remove this layer, and you’re not winding back technology, you’re slamming the brakes on it. You make secure remote access impossible, force businesses into physical offices, and create inefficiencies that waste time, talent, and budget. Universities, global tech companies, regional banks, and even family-owned shops depend on VPNs to maintain continuity and security. Remove secure access and they’ll either shrink operations, leave the region, or both.
These laws, now under consideration in Michigan and Wisconsin, don’t just affect those states. If even one region forces platforms to block VPN traffic, it creates a technical problem for every internet-facing service. Geographic filters don’t work well with encrypted data. Sites might default to blocking VPNs entirely to avoid risk. The impact extends well beyond users in a single state. That’s not theory. That’s networks operating under risk mitigation logic.
This isn’t about liking or disliking a certain technology. It’s about protecting how people, businesses, and institutions operate online. A VPN ban doesn’t just misdiagnose the problem, it becomes the problem.
VPNs are integral to business operations, especially in a cloud-dependent, remote workforce environment
Today’s business isn’t locked inside an office. It runs across cities, across countries, and often across continents. You have employees logging in from airports, coffee shops, and homes. They’re using cloud platforms that shift sensitive files and decisions in real time. VPNs are what let those people do their job, securely and without second-guessing where they are or what network they’re on. It keeps the machine running, securely and reliably.
If lawmakers take away VPNs, businesses are left exposed or forced to call everyone back to the office. That may work if you’re in the Fortune 100 with deep real estate and compliance teams. It doesn’t work for the average SaaS startup, the mid-sized consultancy, or even growing enterprises with decentralized teams. Suddenly, they’re diverting budget to emergency infrastructure or losing talent that won’t relocate.
You cut out VPNs, and you also compromise compliance. Financial firms need secure tunnels to manage records across jurisdictions. Healthcare providers need secure logins for accessing patient data remotely. Legal teams can’t risk transporting privileged information over exposed connections. All of this happens daily, and without encrypted access, none of it is safe, or in many cases, even legal.
So, for any executive considering growth, investment, or digital transformation, understand this: pulling VPNs out of modern work environments is like removing security doors from a high-rise. If you want secure, flexible operations across borders and time zones, you need to keep encrypted access in place. Anything else holds your business back.
Educational institutions rely heavily on VPNs for secure remote access to academic resources and administrative systems
Universities, colleges, and K–12 systems are operating across digital boundaries every day. Whether it’s a student accessing a research database from home or a faculty member reviewing grades while traveling, VPNs ensure that those systems remain secure and accessible. Block them, and you cut off access not just to apps and documents, you cut off the academic experience.
At institutions like the University of Michigan, VPNs aren’t optional. They’re fundamental tools that support collaboration among researchers across different geographies, maintain data security for academic records, and enable distance learning to run without exposure to cyber threats. Without VPN access, schools can’t deliver high-standard education to remote students or enable staff to operate securely over public networks.
When administrators and IT departments lose control over secure access pathways, they also lose the ability to support academic continuity. Library systems, student portals, learning management tools, they depend on reliable and private connections. Stripping that away shrinks the reach of the classroom, disconnects research teams, and leaves sensitive academic infrastructure exposed.
For any education executive planning for hybrid or distributed learning strategies, or universities building international partnerships, this kind of ban doesn’t just create inconvenience, it dismantles the ability to scale, secure, and collaborate effectively in the way modern education demands.
VPNs are crucial for protecting everyday users’ privacy and preventing cyber threats
Every user generates data, location, access history, passwords. Public internet connections don’t protect that. VPNs provide encryption that shields data in motion, especially on open networks. When users rely on cafés, airports, or hotels to work, travel, or connect, that protection is necessary.
Eliminating VPNs removes one of the simplest tools for preventing targeted attacks and tracking. It leaves individuals, remote workers, freelancers, consultants, vulnerable. It takes away control over when, how, and where personal and professional data is protected. You’re not just creating privacy risks, you’re increasing the surface area for criminal and malicious behavior online.
This also affects operational assets. Think of independent professionals switching between home offices and client sites, financial consultants reviewing sensitive data offsite, or legal teams who rely on secure access to sensitive records from variable locations. Without VPN support, the likelihood of compromised access and unprotected traffic increases significantly.
For business leaders and IT decision-makers, this isn’t about user preference, it’s about maintaining basic digital hygiene across your organization. If you remove your team’s ability to mask and encrypt routine traffic, you raise your risk profile, invite regulatory risk, and risk consumer trust in data handling. Maintaining VPN access isn’t just useful, it’s responsible.
Restricting VPNs introduces unintended global technical consequences
VPN traffic doesn’t behave in a way that allows for clean, state-level enforcement. It’s encrypted, dynamic, and often indistinguishable across jurisdictions. That means platforms can’t easily determine if a VPN connection originates in Wisconsin, Michigan, or anywhere else. When uncertainty creates legal exposure, companies typically shut off access across the board, globally.
This is already a concern for major platforms that operate in multiple regions with conflicting internet governance laws. If just a few U.S. states require VPN blocks, online services that handle sensitive or regulated content may respond by blocking VPN traffic entirely, even if users aren’t located in those states. That results in overreach, where users in unaffected regions lose access just to avoid Compliance risk.
For product teams, CTOs, and operations directors working at scale, this creates friction in user experience, lost traffic, or even blocked customer access. It also places additional pressure on compliance and legal teams managing digital policy discrepancies. Removing VPN interoperability at a technical level breaks global systems that depend on consistent access standards.
The business impact is clear: if digital platforms need to start selectively blocking VPNs with no reliable method for identifying restricted regions, they default to blocking all usage. That damages accessibility and fragments the open internet. It also puts companies in a bind, between user security and regulatory avoidance. And in that situation, businesses lose either way.
Banning VPNs jeopardizes compliance with industry regulations and legal standards
Large and small companies across finance, healthcare, and legal sectors are bound by security regulations that require secure transmission of sensitive data. VPNs are one of the most widely accepted tools for meeting those requirements. They provide encrypted tunnels for transmitting personal, financial, and operational data in a way that keeps companies compliant with standards like HIPAA, FINRA, GDPR, and others.
Without VPNs, these organizations face a dual risk: failure to meet legal data protection standards and increased exposure to threats. While there are other ways to encrypt traffic, few are as accessible, well-supported, or scalable as VPNs. Replacing this infrastructure would mean short-term disruption, additional technology costs, and long-term compliance planning around less mature solutions.
For compliance teams, this introduces real risk, where otherwise straightforward audits now reveal access vulnerabilities. For legal counsel and CCOs, enforcement complexity increases as executives must now explain why regulated data may have moved across insecure connections, or why users couldn’t use standard protections while accessing systems remotely.
VPNs aren’t just a convenience, they’re part of the operational maturity model for handling sensitive or regulated data responsibly. Blocking them forces companies to choose between staying compliant and remaining operational. Most will struggle to do both.
Effective digital policy should focus on enhancing cybersecurity rather than imposing restrictive bans
Regulating technology without fully understanding its operational role leads to inefficiency and unintended damage. VPNs are not the problem, they’re part of the solution. They help businesses stay secure, enable academic institutions to function globally, and protect individuals from growing cyber threats. Any serious conversation about digital governance must be centered on how governments can support baseline cybersecurity, not restrict it.
A smarter path is to invest in broader cybersecurity education, modern infrastructure, and policy that reflects how digital systems actually work. Leaders should be aiming to strengthen digital resilience, not weaken it by removing proven tools. This means addressing root-level concerns like illicit content or data abuse without dismantling the platforms that enable security, privacy, and stability for millions.
The business environment runs on secure collaboration, multi-location workforce integration, and trusted digital interfaces. Blocking VPNs undermines all three. Instead, focus policy efforts on adaptive regulation, the kind that integrates with real-world business operations, not works against them. By doing this, states like Michigan and Wisconsin make themselves more attractive hubs for technology, research, and investment.
A forward-looking digital economy depends on protections like VPNs staying available. Restricting these tools won’t increase safety. It will weaken the infrastructure your economy depends on. Leaders who understand this will build environments where innovation can scale securely, without compromising functionality or trust.
The bottom line
If you’re leading a business, a school, or any organization that operates beyond a single office or local server, you need to see VPNs for what they are, essential infrastructure. This isn’t about tech preference. It’s about securing operations, enabling global collaboration, and protecting growth.
Banning VPNs won’t solve misuse. It will dismantle tools teams use every day to stay productive, compliant, and protected. It increases operational risk, limits flexibility, and introduces legal and cybersecurity liabilities that most organizations aren’t equipped to absorb.
Good policy doesn’t block core technologies. It supports transparency, builds robust systems, and respects the realities of how the digital world operates. If you’re investing in transformation, expanding your footprint, or managing risk, this is the moment to speak clearly: secure, encrypted access isn’t optional. It’s foundational. And rolling it back isn’t just a tech issue, it’s a strategic one.
