Terrible headline. The EPRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamentary_Research_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamentary_Researc.

Terrible headline. The EPRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamentary_Research_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamentary_Researc...) said a thing, not the EU. Also, the EPRS did not argue that they are a loophole that needs closing. From the actual paper: > Some argue that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well. In response, some VPN providers argue that they do not share information with third parties and state that their services are not intended for use by children in the first place. The "some argue" is a link; it turns out that 'some' here is the Children's Commissioner for England, a post with, AIUI, only an advisory role in the UK, and obviously not even that in the EU.