Corrections Policy | VPN.com

If something on VPN.com is wrong, tell us. This page says how to report it, what we check, and what happens to the page when we agree.

How to report an error

Email web@vpn.com with the page address, the sentence or figure you believe is wrong, and what you think is correct. A link to the source helps most.

If you represent a provider and believe a finding about it is wrong or out of date, email legal@vpn.com with the finding you dispute and the evidence, for example the full auditor’s report, its scope statement, or written permission to quote it. Our postal address and the other team mailboxes are on the contact page.

Response time

We do not publish a response-time commitment, so none is promised here.

What we check

A claim about a provider’s privacy or security record is kept in a research ledger with its sources, the date each was read, and the searches that found it. We check a report against the original publisher where we can.

Two independent sources. A claim is eligible for publication only when at least two independent sources support it. Independence is decided by origin, not by outlet count: two outlets that restate one press release, one provider statement or one report count as one source. A provider’s own page is evidence of what the provider says, never of whether it is true. The published results are in the VPN research index.

Who we are not. Sending us evidence does not buy a better result, and a commercial relationship with us does not change a finding. Our Disclosures explain how affiliate revenue works on this site, and our methodology explains how Trust Scores are built.

How corrections are made and recorded

• The record changes first. A correction is made in the research ledger or the page source, and the site is rebuilt from it. Both are kept in version control, so each change is dated and attributable.
• A downgraded claim stops rendering. A published sentence is tied to a claim in the ledger. If the evidence behind it is downgraded, the build fails until the sentence is changed or removed, so the old wording does not stay up.
• We watch for new incidents. An automated check runs weekly over news coverage of the providers we have researched, looking for headlines that pair a provider with a word such as lawsuit, breach, leak or audit. It only surfaces leads. A person reviews each one, and nothing reaches a page until it meets the two-source rule.
• Score changes are explained. The methodology page lists what triggers a Trust Score change and states that scores are reviewed quarterly.

We do not currently publish a separate list of past corrections.