This is one of the daft conflicts which presumably we have to live with.
From our training, we are supposed to use PRINTED charts for flight planning.
(Legally this isn't the case; the requirements tend to be phrased as "suitable" rather than "printed".)
Not because they are up to date (they hardly can be, being published once a year, or less often for many areas) but because they are "official". Why are they official? Perhaps it's tradition, but also there are not a few fingers in the map copyright gravy train!
On the other hand, one can buy software charts like e.g. Jeppesen FliteStar/FliteMap (some £500 for all of Europe, plus as much again every year for the 2-weekly update service - a comparable cost to buying the equivalent printed charts) and these will be a lot more up to date than anything that's printed.
Same goes for the databases in physical GPS units. Because there are no GPS approaches around here, there is no legal requirement to update the database. But if someone does, say every 6 months, they SHOULD have a more up to date database than anything one can buy.
The trouble is that anything other than printed charts (and SIA ones in France) is not going to count for much if one busts some airspace.
The other thing is that with a "VFR" GPS (basically any handheld unit) the vendor has no incentive to fix errors because they can always wash their hands of a problem, on the grounds that it is for supplementary nav only.
Even more strangely, the GPS Jepp database has things missing, which aren't missing from the GPS Jepp printed data (or the electronic data in FliteStar). E.g. airways are shown as just a line in the GPS databases whereas they are properly shown in the latter data. THAT is the main argument for having either the printed charts or the FliteStar electronic ones. (One can also print chart sections from the latter and this is how a lot of people completely avoid purchasing printed charts).