That's only partially true

In this case my understanding is that they determined vpn-s as a tool to fall outside the scope of the law and so they struck down an attempt to enforce the law

If the law got changed so that vpn-s are now within the scope of the new law then you'd expect them to not apply the same reasoning anymore in examining a similar case

Judicial review would come into play if the challenge was about the updated law being inconsistent with some more important law such as the treaties or charter