21.9.2017

What Should Businesses Know About Russia’s New VPN Law?

In recent years, Russian authorities have done much to prevent Internet users located within the country from accessing illegal online content. As of 1 November 2017, a new law will close some backdoors to the ‘forbidden fruit’.

Not surprisingly, the new rules may jeopardize the use of corporate VPN connections of international companies. How can a business keep its VPN running even if Russian employees want to see more than they are allowed to by the state?

Corporate VPNs Feared to be a Backdoor to Illegal Content

There are several types of online content that are illegal and subject to ban in Russia.  They include, among other things, war and suicide propaganda and extremist materialsBanning procedures vary depending on the nature of the illegal information, but the result is always the same – access restriction to a relevant website.

The Russian Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) keeps records of websites and their network addresses and demands that website owners and hosting providers ban illegal content. If they fail to do so, all Russian Internet service providers (ISPs) will be required to block users’ access to the forbidden content. That is why the ban can be easily bypassed if users access a website through a non-Russian ISP.

Here is where online VPN services step into the breach and assist Russians in moving Internet traffic through exit nodes beyond Russian borders. Corporate VPNs work in the same way, but for a different purpose, as they help establish secured connections between all parts of a corporate network.

In the meantime, Russia-based employees of international companies may enjoy uncensored Internet via their corporate computers.

New Rules to Prevent Access to Illegal Content

On 29 July 2017 the Russian President signed amendments to the IT Law[1]  introducing the following rule:  owners of information and telecommunications networks and/or information resources (Internet websites and webpages, information systems and computer programs) that are used to provide access to information resources and information and telecommunications networks banned in Russia, are prohibited from allowing the resources and networks they own to be used in such a way as to allow access to banned resources and networks in of Russia (the Prohibition).

The law touches upon both online VPN services intended for private users and business solutions such as corporate VPN clients.

According to the amendments, an ‘owner of information and telecommunications networks and/or information resources’ (i.e., a VPN owner) will have to connect to the federal state information system which contains a list of information resources and networks access to which is restricted in Russia (the State Database).

The State Database will be maintained by Roskomnadzor and will filter all censored content. In case of non-compliance, Roskomnadzor may deny access to VPN through Russian ISPs. As of today, the Prohibition is primarily targeting publicly available VPNs, but corporate networks also fall under the Prohibition according to its literal reading. For this reason, the amendments provide for two exceptional cases.

Exceptions to VPN Restrictions

The Prohibition will not apply to state and/or municipal networks and also will not apply in situations where two conditions are fulfilled:

(a)    the users of the VPN that allows access to illegal content banned in Russia are predetermined and

(b)    VPN is used for technological purposes of supporting operations of the person using it.

The law does not elaborate on these two conditions which leaves them open for interpretation.

At this point, it is clear that a VPN owner should list all Russia-based employees using the VPN in order to meet the first condition. According to a common business practice in Russia, the list should be prepared in writing and adopted by the CEO of the company. However, determining which company needs to prepare the list in a group of companies may prove to be difficult.

The Russian IT Law knows no distinction between the parent company, which usually owns the VPN tools, and its subsidiaries and affiliates, the employees of which use the corporate VPN. Another thing to consider is guest networks which may share the same VPN connection with corporate networks. If that is the case, the company should keep a record of visitors using the guest network to comply with the requirements of the Prohibition.

As to the second condition, the actual scope and limits of ‘technological purposes’ seem unclear. The company should somehow ensure that its Russia-based employees do not use the VPN for any purpose other than the ‘technological purposes’. It is also uncertain whether the ‘person using’ the VPN (as specified in the original legal text of the amendments) means the employee or the company. Whatever ‘technological purposes’ are they surely do not include personal needs of the staff.

International Companies Should Prohibit Personal Use of VPNs

Based on Russian business practice, the most feasible approach for Russian subsidiaries of international companies is to amend the local IT policies or release a separate VPN policy prohibiting any personal use of the VPN and corporate computer systems connected with VPN as well as any other use aiming at bypassing local (Russian) laws.  Such policies must be amended/adopted in a formal procedure according to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation.

It will be clear whether or not these measures are sufficient only after the amendments enter into legal force and Roskomnadzor begins their enforcement. That is why we should keep an eye on Roskomandzor’s next steps regarding the Prohibition.

[1] Federal Law No. 276-ФЗ On Amendments to the Federal Law  On Information, Information Technology and Protection of Information dated 29 July 2017

Latest references

We advised Lantmännen ek för in its contemplated acquisition of Leipurin from Aspo Plc. Lantmännen is an agricultural cooperative and Northern Europe’s leader in agriculture, machinery, bioenergy and food products. Lantmännen is owned by 17,000 Swedish farmers and has 12,000 employees in over 20 countries. Leipurin is a leading Nordic supplier of bakery ingredients, equipment, and expert services to professional bakeries, confectioneries, and food manufacturers. The company operates across Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic countries with subsidiaries located in the aforementioned countries, providing comprehensive solutions to the baking industry. The closing of the transaction remains subject to regulatory approvals.
Case published 25.8.2025
We assisted Oomi Oy in its expansion into the mobile telecommunications market with the launch of Oomi Mobiili, a new MVNO brand. Our work covered the preceding due diligence process as well as structuring and negotiating key partner agreements, laying a solid foundation for Oomi’s entry into the new market. Oomi Mobiili will operate as a virtual mobile network operator, offering customers the option to purchase a mobile subscription together with their electricity contract. The phased launch is set to begin in autumn 2025, with nationwide availability targeted for early 2026. 
Case published 15.8.2025
We advised Nevel Oy in its acquisition of the business of Labio Oy. Lahti Aqua Oy and Salpakierto Oy sold their entire shareholdings in Labio to Nevel, expanding Nevel’s already significant biogas portfolio. The transaction will have no impact on Lahti Aqua’s water utility operations or Salpakierto’s municipal waste management responsibilities. Labio’s operations and customer relationships will continue as before. ‘This partnership is a natural next step for us as we continue investing in sustainable material efficiency and renewable energy solutions. By integrating Labio’s comprehensive offerings and expertise, we can provide customers with a strong platform for material circularity. We are also strengthening our market position as one of Finland’s leading material efficiency solution providers,’ says Ville Koikkalainen, Director of Industrial and Biogas Business at Nevel. Nevel is an energy infrastructure company offering advanced, climate-positive solutions for industry and real estate. It operates more than 130 energy production plants and manages over 40 district heating networks. Nevel’s annual turnover is EUR 150 million, and it employs 190 experts in Finland, Sweden and Estonia.
Case published 16.7.2025
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) issued a significant precedent (decision KHO:2025:23) in a case in which it found that the Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre (Liikennevakuutuskeskus, LVK) processed patient data in accordance with the requirements concerning fairness, data minimisation, and privacy by design and by default when deciding on compensation claims. We represented LVK in this case in which the SAC upheld the Administrative Court’s decision to repeal the EUR 52,000 administrative fine imposed on LVK by the Sanctions Board of the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman. The SAC also confirmed the Administrative Court’s decision, which, as far as we know, was the first of its kind in Finland, ordering the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman to reimburse some of our client’s legal costs. The decision bears great significance for the insurance industry as a whole. The crux of the matter were LVK’s information requests under the Motor Liability Insurance Act for patient data that were essential in determining insurance or compensation claims. In certain cases, making a decision may require extensive patient data. The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman had found that LVK had systematically made overly broad information requests infringing Articles 5 and 25 of the GDPR and that the information should have been provided in the form of separate medical opinions. The Administrative Court repealed the Data Protection Ombudsman’s decision and found that patient records from medical appointments are, as a general rule, essential in establishing causality in compensation matters. It also stated that the tasks related to the consideration of compensation matters are specifically the core tasks of the insurance company and not of the controller of patient data. Furthermore, the Administrative Court found no evidence indicating that LVK would have systematically made overly broad information requests. ‘Once again, our collaboration with C&S was seamless throughout this extensive process, and we could trust that our case was in expert hands’, says Visa Kronbäck, Chief Legal Officer of the Insurance Centre. The full decision is available on the SAC website (in Finnish):  KHO:2025:23.
Case published 18.6.2025