In this post, I will talk about the legal considerations for web scraping.

Although web scraping has been in use for years, its legal status remains complex. For a fact, automated data collection is now more common across industries than before. So, courts, regulators, and legislators worldwide are paying closer attention to how and where scraping is being used. 

If you want to scrape the web, it’s essential to grasp the legal framework before kicking off. We’ll explain in detail as you continue reading. 

Terms of Service Agreements

Per our expertise, a website’s Terms of Service (ToS) is the first and most crucial legal consideration. Why? Well, most sites include clauses that prohibit data mining, scraping, or any automated access. 

Going against the terms makes you subject to legal problems. It doesn’t matter whether the data being collected is publicly available.

In our research, we noted that some courts have issued mixed rulings on whether ToS violations alone are illegal. However, the risk is real enough to take seriously. It’s best to read the terms of any site you intend to scrape and follow the instructions. If possible, seek written permission from the site owner.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

The CFAA is a US federal law originally designed to prevent hacking and unauthorized computer access. In recent times, we’ve seen it apply to web scraping cases with varying outcomes. The biggest question under the CFAA is whether scraping a publicly accessible site equals unauthorized access. 

Let’s take an example with the landmark hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that scraping publicly available data doesn’t violate the CFAA. It was a significant decision for the web scraping industry, but it doesn’t mean automatic protection.

From what we know, the ruling applies only to publicly accessible data. It doesn’t cover situations where you may bypass authentication, technical restrictions, or access data behind a login wall. Our point is that scraping publicly available information is easier to defend. However, anything beyond that carries a higher legal risk under the CFAA.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

If you intend to scrape data that involves European Union residents, you can’t skip the GDPR. We consider it to be one of the most significant legal frameworks to understand. Even if your business is based outside of Europe, GDPR applies if you’re collecting data about EU individuals.

Under GDPR, personal details can’t be collected, stored, or processed without lawful permission. That covers names, email addresses, phone numbers, and any information that can identify a person. So, if you scrape such data, it’s a direct violation, with fines that can reach €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover. The higher figure applies.

Therefore, to stay in a legal position, the safest approach is to collect non-personal and aggregated data. These can be pricing information, product listings, business names, or industry trends.

Copyright Law

Scraping is one thing, and what you do with the data is another. The latter can lead to copyright issues. Most website content is protected by copyright the moment it’s created, especially text, images, product descriptions, and reviews.

If you scrape and publish content verbatim, it’s a direct copyright infringement. There’ll be less legal risk if you collect and analyze data for internal research purposes only. However, if you must put it out, it should be written differently or properly attributed to the source.

Best Proxies for Legal Compliance

As experts, we know that using proxy tools is a standard practice in web scraping. The good news is that they’re legal when applied responsibly. That said, it also depends on the service you’re using. For this reason, it’s essential to choose an established proxy provider to be on the safe side.

Reputable proxy services build their networks with compliance in mind, and these are the best three we recommend:

Oxylabs — Enterprise-Grade Performance & Reliability

Oxylabs stands out as a premium, enterprise-focused proxy provider built for organizations that cannot afford downtime or data gaps. Its infrastructure is backed by ISO, ANSI/TIA, and NIST-certified datacenters, which signals strong adherence to global security and operational standards.

Beyond just proxies, Oxylabs offers a dedicated Web Scraper API, allowing businesses to streamline data extraction without building everything from scratch. Combined with a massive residential proxy pool and high success rates, it’s particularly well-suited for:

• Large-scale data collection (millions of requests)
• Mission-critical scraping operations
• Businesses requiring SLAs and dedicated account support

👉 If your priority is stability, compliance, and guaranteed performance, Oxylabs is one of the safest long-term investments.

Oxylabs Proxies

Oxylabs Proxies offer enterprise-grade, AI-powered proxy solutions with a massive 175M+ IP pool, ensuring unmatched...Show More

Oxylabs Proxies offer enterprise-grade, AI-powered proxy solutions with a massive 175M+ IP pool, ensuring unmatched reliability, speed, and anonymity for large-scale web scraping and data collection. Show Less

OXYLABS50

Get the deal

Decodo — Scalable, Flexible & Ethically Sourced

Decodo (formerly Smartproxy) strikes a strong balance between power, flexibility, and ethical sourcing. With access to 125+ million IP addresses, it provides excellent global coverage for both residential and mobile proxies.

One of its biggest strengths is its EWDCI certification, which emphasizes that its proxy network is built through ethical and sustainable sourcing practices—a growing concern in modern data operations.

Decodo is especially effective for:

• Bypassing advanced anti-bot systems
• Accessing geo-restricted content
• Scaling scraping operations without excessive complexity

👉 If you want a solution that is powerful yet adaptable, while maintaining ethical standards, Decodo is a very smart choice.

Decodo (formerly Smartproxy)

Decodo (formerly Smartproxy) is an AI-powered proxy service and web scraping solutions provider that enables seamless...Show More

Decodo (formerly Smartproxy) is an AI-powered proxy service and web scraping solutions provider that enables seamless, large-scale data extraction with smart, reliable, and cost-effective tools for businesses of any size. Show Less

Start For Free

Get the deal

Webshare — Cost-Effective Scale with Built-In Simplicity

Webshare is known for delivering accessible, budget-friendly proxy solutions without sacrificing global reach. Its network includes 80+ million residential IPs and coverage across 195+ countries, making it ideal for distributed scraping tasks.

What makes Webshare particularly attractive is its ease of use and built-in data handling features, such as automatic aggregation, which reduces the need for additional tooling. It also operates under a clear and transparent Compliance Policy, reinforcing its commitment to legal usage.

Webshare works best for:

• Startups and growing scraping operations
• High-volume concurrent requests
• Teams that want simplicity without heavy infrastructure

👉 If your focus is affordability, scalability, and ease of deployment, Webshare offers excellent value.

Webshare Proxies

Webshare Proxies offers high-speed, customizable, and budget-friendly proxy solutions with flexible pricing, ensuring...Show More

Webshare Proxies offers high-speed, customizable, and budget-friendly proxy solutions with flexible pricing, ensuring seamless web scraping, automation, and online anonymity for businesses and individuals. Show Less

10% OFF FIRST PURCHASE PRE-APPLIED

Get the deal

Quick Positioning Guide

To avoid risks, don’t use proxies to bypass specific legal restrictions or authentication systems. Also, don’t deploy your scraping requests in a way that’s against a site’s terms.

Other Data Protection Laws

We’ve talked about GDPR, which is the most well-known data protection framework. However, it’s far from being the only one. We need to be aware of:

• CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act): Governs the collection and use of personal data belonging to California residents.
• PIPEDA (Canada): Canada’s federal privacy law covering personal data collection in commercial contexts.
• PDPA (Thailand, Singapore, and others): Various Asia-Pacific nations have their own personal data protection laws with international reach.

Before performing a scraping operation targeting users or data from multiple countries, we advise conducting a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction legal review. That way, you’ll know what specific data protection laws apply and what’s legal.

Bottom Line: Legal Compliance is Crucial for Sustainable Scraping

Businesses that successfully run durable, long-term scraping operations prioritize legal compliance. For your web scraping projects, you should treat compliance as a foundation rather than an afterthought.

As we explained, it starts by respecting the Terms of Service of your target site. Also, you have to stay within the boundaries of laws like the CFAA and GDPR, and use compliant proxy providers. Oxylabs, Decodo, and Webshare are the three top proxy services we recommend.  

Finally, collect only the data you genuinely need for your project. If you do these, you can scrape with confidence, without unnecessary legal exposure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

FAQ: Legal Considerations for Web Scraping

1. Is web scraping legal?

Web scraping is not outright illegal, but its legality depends on how and what you scrape. The legal landscape is complex and varies by jurisdiction.

Key factors that determine legality include:

• Whether the data is publicly accessible
• Compliance with a website’s Terms of Service
• Whether personal data is involved
• How the data is used after collection

For sustainable operations, businesses must treat compliance as a core foundation, not an afterthought.

2. Can I scrape any website if the data is public?

Not necessarily. Even if data is publicly available, you must still respect the website’s Terms of Service (ToS). Many sites explicitly prohibit scraping or automated access.

Violating these terms can expose you to legal risks, even if courts have issued mixed rulings on enforcement.

Best practice:

• Always review the ToS before scraping
• Seek permission when possible
• Avoid aggressive scraping behavior

Public data is easier to defend legally—but it’s not a free pass.

3. What laws should I be aware of when scraping data?

Several major laws and regulations impact web scraping:

• CFAA (U.S.) → Focuses on unauthorized access (especially bypassing restrictions)
• GDPR (EU) → Strict rules on collecting personal data
• CCPA, PIPEDA, PDPA → Regional data protection laws across the US, Canada, and Asia

For example, under GDPR, collecting personal data without lawful basis can lead to fines up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover.

To stay safe, focus on non-personal, aggregated data like pricing, product listings, or trends.

4. Can I reuse or publish scraped content?

You need to be careful here. Most website content is protected by copyright law the moment it’s created.

• Copying and republishing content directly → ❌ High legal risk
• Using data for internal analysis → ✅ Safer
• Publishing insights with original wording or attribution → ✅ Acceptable

The key rule: Don’t reproduce scraped content verbatim without permission.

5. Are proxies legal to use for web scraping?

Yes—proxies are legal when used responsibly. They are a standard tool for managing requests and avoiding blocks. However, misuse (like bypassing login systems or legal restrictions) can create serious legal exposure.

To stay compliant, use reputable providers that prioritize ethical sourcing and legal standards:

• Oxylabs → Enterprise-grade proxies with certified infrastructure and Web Scraper API
• Decodo → Ethically sourced IPs with strong compliance credentials
• Webshare → Global proxy network with a clear compliance policy

Using trusted providers helps ensure your scraping operations remain both effective and legally sound.

INTERESTING POSTS

In this post, I will talk about the top VPNs chosen by gamers.

As seen in the news in 2026, online criminals are sometimes getting away with it. However, they despise virtual private networks. Also known as VPNs, these handy tools are becoming necessities for gamers, especially those who want to combat cybercrime and add an additional layer of security to their online gaming efforts. 

By protecting players against devastating attacks like account takeovers and malicious malware, VPNs are helping gamers everywhere in the modern environment. Of course, more secure gaming offerings don’t necessarily require a VPN, such as options like DraftKings casino, thanks to high-end encryption features and secure payment gateways, but many alternative gaming options do. As such, VPNs are seen as the perfect solution. Additionally, they can also reduce lag, lower ping, prevent ISP throttling, and more. 

So, with huge populations of dedicated gamers turning to VPNs in 2026, we highlight some of the most trusted VPNs for gamers right now. 

Private Internet Access 

Starting things off with a pick that tends to go under the radar, Private Internet Access is a VPN company that is beginning to get noticed by gamers. For people who crave online privacy, in particular, Private Internet Access ticks a lot of boxes. From its AES-256 encryption and its excellent all-around value, to its 621 Mbps and an intricate server network that covers around 91 countries at the time of writing, Private Internet Access is a solid VPN to go with right now. 

NordVPN 

As a major player in the VPN space, NordVPN is a safe bet here. This VPN behemoth has been around for years now, offering an unrivalled service and more affordable plans compared to many other leading options out there. Also offering speeds of around 901 Mbps and a server network spanning 118 countries at the time of writing, NordVPN works for many gamers. 

CyberGhost 

A solid all-rounder, CyberGhost is a fantastic VPN service that gamers everywhere endorse. WireGuard speeds reaching 950+ Mbps are mightily impressive. CyberGhost has a massive 11,500 servers in around 100 countries, and it blocks annoying pop-ups and the like. A VPN service that also doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to sample, CyberGhost comes with a range of features that will pique the interest of passionate gamers. In fact, it’s hard to fault it. 

Surfshark 

The aforementioned NordVPN trumps most of its competitors when it comes to affordability, although SurfShark beats it in that area. This tried and trusted VPN provider boasts a fast service of up to 848 Mbps, with monthly packages costing as little as a cup of coffee. SurfShark also guards against the most damaging of online attacks by masking your IP address in an effective manner, especially as users of the service can jump between up to 100 countries. Also coming with dedicated IP options to avoid shared IP bans, SurfShark is a brilliant VPN. 

ExpressVPN

When it comes to gaming speeds, ExpressVPN is arguably the best option on the list. Providing speeds of up to 1,617 Mbps, it’s perfect for dedicated online players who want to experience the games they know and love in the manner they deserve.

In terms of security features, ExpressVPN also boasts a clever Shuffle IP feature that randomly changes your IP address during sessions, making it a real nuisance for any hackers who are lurking. Also offering a password manager and a server network spanning 105 countries, ExpressVPN is exceptional. 

Other VPNs gamers are turning to in 2026 include Proton VPN, TunnelBear VPN, Mullvad VPN, and IPVanish VPN. 

INTERESTING POSTS

In this post, I will talk about zero-trust hosting and show you what it means and why it’s becoming the standard.

Let’s get the obvious problem out of the way first. Zero trust has been talked about for fifteen years. It appears in every vendor deck, every security strategy document, and roughly every third conference keynote. The term has been stretched to cover so many products and approaches that it’s become genuinely difficult to say anything about it that doesn’t sound like marketing.

So this isn’t a piece about zero trust as a philosophy. It’s about a specific and persistent blind spot in how zero trust principles get applied — hosting environments — and why that gap is increasingly the place where breaches actually happen.

Conversations about zero trust have tended to concentrate on identity systems, endpoint management, and network segmentation. Those are important. But the web servers, control panels, DNS management interfaces, and shared infrastructure that underpin most organisations’ online presence have historically sat outside the frame. Poorly governed hosting access is one of the most common and most underappreciated initial access vectors in real-world breaches. The principles that address it aren’t new. Applying them consistently to hosting infrastructure is.

Why the perimeter model failed hosting environments specifically

The perimeter security model assumed that whatever sat inside the network boundary could be trusted. Hosting environments broke that assumption in specific, well-documented ways long before most organisations noticed.

Once workloads moved off-premise — and for most organisations, that happened gradually and partially, not all at once — the idea of a meaningful internal boundary became largely fictional. An application running on shared infrastructure, administered via a control panel accessed from multiple locations, managed by accounts that were provisioned years ago and never reviewed — none of that maps onto a trust boundary that makes operational sense.

Hosting-related compromises follow a recognisable pattern. Credential theft or reuse against poorly protected control panels. Lateral movement through misconfigured server environments where one compromised account can reach configuration files, databases, and email settings for other hosted services. Exploitation of over-permissioned accounts that were set up for convenience — because someone needed access urgently, or because admin access was the path of least resistance — and never scoped down afterwards.

These aren’t sophisticated attack vectors. They persist because the access model underneath most hosting environments hasn’t kept pace with how threats actually operate. The specific failure mode is implicit trust: the assumption that because an account exists and a credential is valid, the access it grants is legitimate. That assumption is exactly what zero trust exists to challenge.

What zero trust actually means in a hosting context

Zero trust applied to hosting isn’t a product category or a vendor claim. It’s a set of concrete practices that change how access to hosting infrastructure is structured, granted, and maintained over time.

The three foundational principles translate directly. Verify explicitly means that every access request to a hosting environment is authenticated against current context — not assumed from a prior session, not inherited from a shared credential. Least privilege means accounts have access to exactly what they need, scoped to specific functions and time windows, not whatever level of access was easiest to grant at provisioning. Assume breach means the architecture is designed so that a compromised account or server cannot freely traverse the environment — the blast radius of any single failure is contained by design.

In practical hosting terms, this looks like MFA enforced across every access path — control panels, SSH, FTP, DNS management interfaces, registrar accounts — not just for administrators, and not just for some access points. It looks like role-based access controls that separate who can modify DNS records from who can deploy application code from who can access billing and account settings. It looks like session-based rather than persistent credential models, where access is time-limited and re-verified rather than indefinitely open once established.

Microsegmentation matters here as much as it does in enterprise network security, even if the implementation looks different. A hosting environment where one compromised application can reach configuration files, databases, and outbound mail settings for other hosted services on the same infrastructure is a flat architecture with an unnecessarily large blast radius. Segmentation between workloads, between tenants in multi-tenant environments, and between functional access layers directly limits what an attacker can reach from any single point of compromise.

Encryption at rest and in transit is foundational rather than advanced — databases, configuration files, and stored credentials encrypted at rest; all traffic between users and hosting management interfaces encrypted in transit. These are baseline controls, and they’re still absent in more environments than security teams would be comfortable acknowledging out loud.

Why this is becoming the standard, not just good practice

Three converging pressures are moving zero trust principles in hosting from aspirational to expected: the threat environment, regulatory direction, and the maturity of the hosting provider landscape itself.

On the threat side, credential-based attacks and exploitation of over-permissioned hosting accounts have been consistently among the most common initial access methods for years. AI-accelerated phishing and credential stuffing at scale have compounded the volume problem significantly. The attack surface of a hosting environment with weak access controls is no longer a theoretical risk that security teams can deprioritise — it’s an active and targeted one, and the tooling available to attackers has made it cheaper and faster to exploit than it used to be.

Regulatory frameworks are also moving in a consistent direction. Australia’s Essential Eight, NIST SP 800-207 — which formally codifies zero trust architecture — and tightening obligations under data protection regulation all point toward continuous verification, least privilege access, and documented access controls as requirements rather than recommendations. Hosting environments sit directly in scope for these obligations, whether or not organisations have historically treated them that way. The gap between how hosting access is actually managed in most environments and what these frameworks require is significant, and auditors are beginning to close it.

The hosting provider landscape is shifting too. Providers that once offered shared infrastructure with minimal access controls as a baseline are now expected to demonstrate security posture — segmented infrastructure, audit logging, MFA enforcement at the platform level, and defined incident response capability. Where your hosting infrastructure sits, and who operates it, matters when you’re evaluating whether your environment can realistically support zero trust access controls or actively works against them. A provider like VentraIP, operating under Australian accountability frameworks with infrastructure built for these requirements, is a meaningfully different foundation than a provider with opaque ownership, offshore data handling, and no clear abuse response process.

The honest practitioner assessment of zero trust implementation — from people actually doing it rather than talking about it — is that it’s less about having the architecture in place and more about where it’s real: which specific access paths and infrastructure components are genuinely enforcing the principles, and which are still running on implicit trust. Hosting environments consistently lag behind endpoint and identity work. That lag is where attackers look.

Where most environments actually are

Most organisations are further from zero trust hosting than they think, and the gaps are almost always in operational details rather than architecture.

The most common failure modes aren’t conceptual. They’re the SSH key provisioned for a project two years ago and never rotated. The control panel account with admin access held by a developer who left the organisation. The DNS management credentials stored in a shared password manager with access for the whole team, including people whose role doesn’t require it. The agency that built the site still having active credentials to the hosting environment six months after the project closed. None of these require sophisticated attacks to exploit. They require an attacker to find them — and finding them is increasingly automated.

Access reviews for hosting infrastructure are rare. Unlike identity systems tied to HR offboarding processes, hosting account access tends to be provisioned once and treated as permanent. There’s typically no process for regularly asking who actually needs access, to what, and whether that access is still appropriate. Least privilege is difficult to enforce without that process, and without it, access scope tends to only ever expand.

Logging and visibility are often absent or treated as someone else’s problem. Zero trust is not just about controlling access — it’s about having the telemetry to detect when access behaviour is anomalous. A hosting environment where admin logins, configuration changes, and file access aren’t logged and reviewed is an environment where compromise can sit undetected for weeks. The dwell time problem in hosting-related breaches is as much a visibility gap as an access control gap. You can’t investigate what you can’t see, and you can’t see what you’re not logging.

Closing the gaps

Zero trust for hosting doesn’t require a full architectural overhaul. A prioritised set of controls addresses the majority of realistic risk, and most of it is operational discipline rather than technical complexity.

Enforce MFA on every access path into your hosting environment — control panels, SSH, DNS management, registrar accounts, backup systems. No exceptions for operational convenience, because convenience is exactly the rationale that leaves access paths exposed.

Audit access and rotate credentials on a defined schedule. Treat hosting credentials as production secrets — they should have owners, expiry dates, and a rotation cadence. Conduct a formal review of who has access to what at least quarterly, and revoke access that isn’t actively needed.

Segment access roles. Separate the account that can modify DNS from the account that can deploy code from the account that can access billing. The principle is simple: assume the blast radius of any single compromised account should be limited to one functional layer, and design accordingly.

Enable and review logs. If your hosting environment doesn’t log admin access, configuration changes, and file modifications — or if those logs aren’t being reviewed — fix the visibility problem before the access control problem. You won’t know what to fix without it, and you won’t know you’ve been breached until it’s already costly.

Finally, evaluate your hosting provider against these criteria explicitly. A hosting environment that doesn’t support MFA enforcement, doesn’t provide audit logs, and doesn’t offer segmented access controls cannot support a zero trust access model regardless of what controls you build on top of it. The infrastructure layer is not neutral. It either enables zero trust principles or it actively works against them.

Zero trust in a hosting context isn’t a destination. It’s a set of access discipline practices applied consistently to infrastructure that has historically been treated as an afterthought in security architecture. The gap between where most hosting environments currently sit and where these principles would put them is almost entirely in unglamorous operational work — access reviews, credential rotation, log monitoring, role scoping. Not architecture. Not tooling. Discipline.

That’s both the frustrating and the useful truth about it. The path is clear. The work is achievable. Most environments just haven’t started it yet.

INTERESTING POSTS