Type “best VPN 2026” into Google and you will land on a dozen sites that all call themselves independent. Most of them are not. Behind the badges, the “lab tested” claims, and the confident star ratings sits a business model that quietly shapes the results: affiliate commissions, shared ownership, and in some cases, the same parent company selling the VPN and writing the review of it.
That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented, ongoing problem in the privacy industry, and understanding how it works is the first step to finding a genuine independent authority on VPNs rather than a sales page dressed up as journalism.
The Ownership Problem, In Plain Terms
A huge share of the “top 10 VPN” content online traces back to a small number of holding companies. Kape Technologies, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange, owns ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, Private Internet Access, and Zenmate. In March 2021, Kape also acquired Webselenese, a Tel Aviv based performance marketing company that runs a network of VPN comparison and review sites. According to Kape’s own investor materials, that acquired content ecosystem now drives roughly a third of the group’s organic traffic and has cut customer acquisition costs by an estimated fifth, funnelling readers directly into the VPN products the same parent company sells.
Ziff Davis follows a similar pattern in the United States, owning both consumer tech outlets like PCMag and CNET and commercial ties to the VPNs those outlets rank.
None of this means every review from these sites is dishonest. It means the word “independent” on the page needs to be checked, not taken on faith.
The Piece Nobody Is Talking About: UK Regulators Are Now Policing the Word “Independent”
Here is the gap in almost every article currently ranking for this topic: they describe the ownership problem, but none of them mention that UK regulators have started actively enforcing against it.
The Advertising Standards Authority, the UK’s independent ad regulator, operates under the CAP Code, which requires that marketing communications never falsely claim to be acting outside a trade or business, and that any commercial intent be made obvious. Following the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which introduced stronger UK rules on fake and misleading consumer reviews, the ASA has upheld multiple complaints against comparison and review websites for exactly this issue: using words like “unbiased,” “independent,” or “expert tested” while the site owner held an undisclosed financial interest in the products being ranked. In its rulings against sites including Pets Corner and trustedbuyerguide.org, the ASA specifically found that burying a commercial disclosure inside an About page or FAQ section was not sufficient disclosure under the Code.
The ASA has also directly ruled on VPN advertising before, having banned a paid YouTube ad for Surfshark for using distressing imagery in a way that breached its rules on responsible targeting.
Put together, this means a site publishing “independent VPN reviews” from a UK audience is not just making a marketing claim. It is making a claim that a UK regulator can, and does, investigate. That is a meaningfully higher bar than most VPN review sites, which are based in the US or operate without any equivalent oversight, are ever held to. It is also a detail that is largely absent from the American commentary dominating this topic, since the ASA’s jurisdiction and the DMCC Act are UK specific.
A Five Point Checklist to Test Any Self Proclaimed VPN Authority
Rather than trusting a badge on a homepage, run the site through these checks yourself.
1. Ownership transparency. Does the site name its parent company, and does that parent company also sell VPNs? A quick search of the domain’s WHOIS history or “About” page usually answers this in under a minute.
2. Audit sourcing. Are claimed audits (Deloitte, Cure53, SecuRing, and similar firms) linked to the original published report, or only described in the reviewer’s own words?
3. Testing methodology, published and dated. Genuine testing labs publish their server list, test conditions, and date of the last run. If a site claims “10Gbps fiber backbone testing” but will not show you a single raw result, treat the claim as marketing copy.
4. Affiliate disclosure placement. Under UK rules, disclosure buried in a footer or FAQ does not count as adequate. A trustworthy site puts its commercial relationship where you will actually see it, near the recommendation itself.
5. Consistency of criticism. An independent authority occasionally ranks a big, high commission VPN below a smaller, lower paying one. If every top pick happens to be the highest paying affiliate program in the industry, that is not a coincidence worth ignoring.
Where This Leaves UK Readers
For readers based in the UK specifically, this regulatory context is not abstract. Sites operating under UK jurisdiction, such as VPN Online, sit within reach of ASA enforcement in a way that many US hosted review mills do not. That does not automatically make a UK based site more accurate, but it does mean its claims of independence carry a real compliance obligation behind them, not just a slogan.
If you are trying to choose a VPN and want a starting point built around transparent methodology rather than affiliate maximisation, VPN Online is worth bookmarking alongside the checklist above, precisely because you can hold a UK based publisher to a UK based standard.
“Independent” is one of the most overused words in the VPN industry, largely because it works. It signals trust instantly, and readers rarely check whether it is true. The sites that deserve the label share three traits: disclosed ownership, verifiable audits, and methodology you can actually inspect rather than take on faith. Everything else is marketing wearing a lab coat.