The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2026 — A new report from the Woodhull Freedom Foundation finds that age-verification laws aimed at restricting access to online pornography are having broader effects on sex educators and sexual health professionals. While the laws were promoted as a way to limit minors’ access to explicit content, the report indicates that many professionals say the measures are affecting access to educational resources.

Preliminary findings from a national survey conducted in March show a wide-ranging impact across the field. Among those surveyed, sex educators reported the highest level of concern. According to the data, 73% of sex educators said they are concerned that age-verification laws will affect their work, practice, or resources, while 76% said they fear the laws could be used to further restrict access to sex education and related materials. Eighteen percent of educators said the laws have already affected their work, a figure that rises to 33% among educators in states with existing mandates.

The report also found that concerns extend beyond educators. Among all sexual health professionals surveyed, 58% said they are worried that age-verification laws could be used to limit access to sex education and other resources, while 53% reported concern about the potential impact on their work or practice.

“Age-verification laws are already impacting sex education in the US,” said Ricci Joy Levy, President and CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. “Again and again, we were told this was only about keeping minors from accessing porn. Woodhull warned these vague and overly broad policies would also result in censorship of vital, non-explicit information about sex and gender, and the data bear this out. The current age-verification protocols are ripe for abuse, and educators are right to be scared.”

Since 2023, nearly half of U.S. states have enacted laws requiring age verification to access material defined as “harmful to minors.” Lawmakers have described the measures as a way to prevent minors from accessing pornographic websites. However, the report notes that the definition of “harmful to minors” is broad and has been applied in some states to restrict access to sex education and LGBTQ+ content for individuals under 18.

The Woodhull survey was conducted between March 3 and March 28, 2026, and distributed through professional networks and organizations. Respondents included professionals working in sex education, research, mental health services, relationship counseling, reproductive care, wellness, and advocacy. A total of 56 respondents completed the survey during its initial phase.

The findings represent an early assessment of how age-verification laws are affecting sexual health and education. The Woodhull Freedom Foundation stated that it plans to expand the survey in the coming months to gather additional data on how different populations and areas of practice are being impacted.

For more information on the survey, including additional data, contact Woodhull Freedom Foundation at info@woodhullfoundation.org.

LOS ANGELES — The Free Speech Coalition issued a policy statement outlining Utah’s recently passed SB 73, which revises the state’s age verification law and introduces a new 2% excise tax on certain digital content revenue.

According to the policy statement, beginning October 1, 2026, entities subject to Utah’s age verification requirements must pay a 2% excise tax on sales of access to digital images, audio-visual works, audio works, digital books, or gaming services, including streaming and subscription-based access. The update also notes that changes to the state’s existing age verification law will take effect May 6, 2026.

The policy statement states that under the updated law, “Any individual actually located in Utah is considered to be accessing the site from Utah, regardless of whether they are using a VPN or proxy server to mask their location.” It adds that sites may not facilitate or encourage the use of VPNs or proxy services to circumvent age verification requirements.

The Free Speech Coalition further reports that enforcement authority has been expanded. The Utah Division of Consumer Protection is authorized to investigate violations, issue citations, impose administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation, and initiate court actions. Courts may impose additional civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, order disgorgement of revenue, and award damages. Violations of administrative or court orders may result in penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. The Division will coordinate enforcement efforts with the Utah Attorney General’s Office and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, while private civil actions remain available.

The policy statement also describes a new safe harbor provision, stating that a commercial entity will be considered compliant if it uses an age verification method that meets standards to be established by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection.

In the policy statement, the Free Speech Coalition notes, “We realize that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine if a visitor is using a VPN and, if so, if that a person disguising their location via VPN might be from Utah.” The organization adds, “We do not have a good answer as to how to be compliant with this law, short of treating every potential visitor as if they were coming from Utah.”

The statement continues, “This, of course, is untenable. We are working with members, partners and allies to find potential solutions and will keep members abreast of any developments.”

The policy statement further clarifies that, unlike Alabama’s gross revenue tax, Utah’s tax applies only to specified digital content. It also notes that the enforcement structure is self-funding, with excise tax revenue and civil penalties directed to the Division of Consumer Protection’s enforcement activities. The Utah Legislature has appropriated $4,000,000 in initial funding for implementation.

Finally, the Free Speech Coalition states that the Division of Consumer Protection has been granted rulemaking authority to establish age verification standards and safe harbor criteria, indicating that compliance requirements may evolve after the May 6 effective date. The organization said it will monitor rulemaking activity and provide updates.

Over the years, I’ve had many conversations with friends and peers who, unlike me, do not work in the adult entertainment industry, in which those friends and peers have expressed their confusion over why the adult industry opposes things like age verification mandates for porn websites.

Who could be against preventing kids from accessing online porn, right? Isn’t it just sensible and reasonable to impose the same limitations we have in the brick-and-mortar world on the internet, when it comes to accessing pornography?

Frankly, if verifying a person’s age online were as simple and straightforward as checking a patron’s ID as they walk into an adult shop, I doubt many (if any) folks in the adult industry would be against it. The problem is, checking someone’s ID on the internet isn’t remotely the same as doing so in person – and the circumstances requiring a merchant or service provider to check the ID isn’t nearly as straightforward as it is in the physical world, either.

As state level age verification mandates continue to proliferate across the U.S. and the globe, it’s fair to say most legislators are firmly in favor of these measures. And while plenty of people are noting some of the downsides of age verification statutes, including emerging evidence that such regulation tends to drive users to darker, less safe corners of the web, there seems to be no slowing the momentum of the drive to impose age verification in a global fashion.

As governments continue to adopt these rules, it falls to those of us who must live under them to at least try to keep those governments honest, to assure that if they must pass these laws and establish these regulations, they at least do so under a set of clear, easily understood and narrow definitions.

Spoiler alert: Staying within clear, easy to understand definitions typically isn’t a strong suit of governments or legislators.

In critiquing social media age restrictions, which are supported by arguments that closely track the ones used to argue in favor of age verification mandates for adult sites, the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that in the UK, the choices made about which platforms and sites are subject to the rules is a “process is devoid of checks or accountability mechanisms as ministers will not be required to demonstrate specific harms to young people, which essentially unravels years-long efforts by Ofcom to assess online services according to their risks.”

“And given the moment the UK is currently in, such as refusing to protect trans and LGBTQ+ communities and flaming hostile and racist discourses, it is not unlikely that we’ll see ministers start restricting content that they ideologically or morally feel opposed to, rather than because the content is harmful based, as established by evidence and assessed pursuant to established human rights principles,” adds Paige Collings for EFF.

Collings adds that we already know from actions taken in other jurisdictions, including the U.S., “that legislation seeking to protect young people typically sweeps up a slew of broadly defined topics.”

“Some block access to websites that contain some ‘sexual material harmful to minors,’ which has historically meant explicit sexual content,” Collings notes. “But some states are now defining the term more broadly so that ‘sexual material harmful to minors’ could encompass anything like sex education; others simply list a variety of vaguely defined harms. In either instance, this bill would enable ministers to target LGBTQ+ content online by pushing this behind an under-18s age gate, and this risk is especially clear given what we already know about platform content policies.”

In other words, these regulations are going to be applied in ways the sponsors of age verification legislation never copped to when crafting or debating the laws. In some cases, the people who wrote the laws may not even have foreseen the problem created by their loose approach to statutory construction.

At this point, we probably can’t stop the forward march of the age verification mandate trend. More of these laws will be written, more will be passed and – given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, more will survive court scrutiny.

What we can do, as citizens of the jurisdictions covered by these age verification mandates, is make our voices heard on the more problematic aspects of these laws. We can contact our legislators, lobby for changes to the laws, lobby for better definitions and support candidates who show a willingness to listen. After all, a law surviving court scrutiny doesn’t mean we have to like it – or that we must stop telling our elected officials we don’t like it.

The bottom line is, porn continues to be popular, whether the people who would like to ban it (or effectively regulate it into a dark corner) like it or not. If people who enjoy adult entertainment are willing to speak up, we may not be able to strike a decisive blow in the War on Porn, but we can at least mitigate the collateral damage.

LONDON — Ofcom has issued a provisional finding that First Time Videos, the operator of FTVGirls.com and FTVMilfs.com, may be in breach of age assurance obligations set out in the Online Safety Act.

The regulator had previously launched an inquiry to determine whether the company’s platforms were using “highly effective” age checks to prevent access by minors.

After completing that review, Ofcom said it has “provisionally determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that First Time Videos LLC has failed to comply with section 81 of the Online Safety Act,” according to a statement published on its website.

The notice of contravention sets out the basis for Ofcom’s findings and the enforcement steps under consideration. The company has been given 20 working days to respond, and the regulator said any submissions “will be carefully considered before reaching a final decision.”

Separately, Ofcom said it is widening the scope of an existing investigation into Web Prime Inc., which operates www.anysex.com, www.fapality.com, www.mylust.com, www.xcafe.com and www.yourlust.com. The inquiry, which began in September 2025, now includes both compliance with age verification rules and a potential failure to respond to a formal information notice issued in February.

The regulator’s enforcement powers under the law include fines of up to 18 million pounds or 10% of a company’s qualifying global revenue. It may also apply to the courts to require payment providers or advertisers to withdraw services from a platform, or direct internet service providers to block access to sites within the U.K.

In a separate matter, Ofcom said it has concluded its investigation into Duplanto Ltd., the operator of www.pornhaven.ai, after the company restricted access to users with U.K. IP addresses, “reducing the likelihood that children in the U.K. will be exposed to pornographic content present on its service.”

TOPEKA — A pair of lawsuits quietly fell apart, and with them, at least for now, a piece of Kansas’ effort to enforce age verification online. The question left hanging is a familiar one: how far can a state’s reach really go on the internet?

The recent dismissal of two lawsuits against pornographic websites over Kansas’ age verification requirements raises uncertainty about how the law can be enforced after a federal judge ruled that the Constitution does not allow the companies to be sued in Kansas because they are based outside the state.

U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter dismissed the cases, finding that the websites — headquartered in Washington state and Canada — did not purposefully operate in Kansas or establish sufficient ties to the state.

Her Feb. 10 order relied on constitutional principles that limit a state court’s authority over non-residents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.

The lawsuits were among four filed by an anti-pornography group on behalf of an anonymous 14-year-old boy from Olathe, identified in court filings as “Q.R.” The boy’s mother alleged that her son accessed pornographic websites operated by the companies, in violation of a 2024 Kansas law requiring age verification for users.

Attorneys representing defendant Titan Websites said the ruling reinforces limits on state authority.

“The court found that due process requires more of a defendant than merely making a website available in a state before being subject to that state’s laws,” attorneys Jeff Sandman and Max Kautsch said in a written statement.

Legal representatives for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which brought the lawsuits on behalf of the Olathe boy, said at the time of the ruling that they disagreed with the decision and were considering an appeal. No appeal was filed before the deadline, and the organization has not responded to subsequent requests for comment.

“These cases are just at the beginning stages,” Dani Pinter, director of the legal division for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said in a February statement.

In a related case, another company sought dismissal on similar jurisdictional grounds, but that request was denied. A fourth lawsuit tied to the same claims was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

Separately, a lawsuit filed by Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach against several pornographic websites is continuing after a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction was denied.

Kobach’s office has not responded to multiple requests for comment regarding that case.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly allowed the age verification bill to become law in 2024 without her signature, citing legal and constitutional concerns. The measure passed with bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. Under the law, companies could face damages exceeding $50,000 if a court determines that minors were harmed by accessing their sites.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could enforce a similar age verification law. Opponents of such laws have argued they impose burdens on adults seeking to access content protected under the First Amendment.

Mike Stabile, director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, said the Kansas ruling highlights ongoing challenges in enforcing these laws, though he expects further legal action could follow.

“These are censorship laws,” Stabile said. “There is a chilling effect in having the threat of litigation. So even though these cases have been dismissed, even though the plaintiffs have failed to appeal, these platforms still have to deal with likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.”

Some websites have already restricted access in response to state laws. Pornhub, one of the most widely visited sites globally, has blocked access in multiple states, including Kansas, citing compliance concerns.

Stabile said his organization advises members to comply with applicable laws until courts rule otherwise.

At the same time, early research suggests that while access to major platforms may decline under such laws, traffic may shift elsewhere. One study found increased searches for smaller platforms that do not comply with age verification requirements, along with a rise in searches for virtual private networks, which can bypass geographic restrictions.

Stabile said the broader legal issue remains unresolved: “Can a single state’s law be used to police speech across the entire internet?”

WASHINGTON — Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters Thursday to the chief executives of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard, warning against debanking practices, including denying access to financial services based on a customer’s lawful business activities.

“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” the letters state. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”

The executive order prohibits banks, savings associations, credit unions and other financial service providers from restricting access to accounts, loans or other services based on a customer’s lawful business activities that the institution may disagree with or view unfavorably for political reasons.

Following the order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a report on debanking that identified several sectors, including adult entertainment, as facing potential discrimination due to activities considered inconsistent with certain financial institutions’ values.

Ferguson’s letters state that companies engaging in deplatforming or denying services to such customers could face Federal Trade Commission investigations and possible enforcement action.

Possible Pressure on Banks via Card Brands

The letters to Visa and Mastercard also reference the role of payment networks and providers, noting concerns about financial institutions that restrict access to services for these reasons. Ferguson wrote that it is “critical” for card networks not to allow unlawful debanking by member institutions, including banks that process transactions on their systems.

“Consumers cannot reasonably avoid this harm, particularly where, as is almost always the case, the First Amendment-protected activity that triggered the adverse action against them had no logical connection to, or material bearing on, their commercial relationship with the payment provider or network,” Ferguson wrote.

The letters suggest that payment networks may play a role in addressing practices by financial institutions that deny services under these circumstances.

The potential for additional oversight comes as questions remain about the extent of regulatory action from banking agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration.

Proposed rules would restrict those agencies from taking action against institutions for providing services to individuals or businesses engaged in lawful activities that may be viewed as presenting reputational risk. However, those rules would still allow banks to make decisions regarding customers based on considerations tied to safety and soundness.

It remains unclear how enforcement priorities will be applied across different industries, including those identified in prior regulatory reports.

WASHINGTON — Following the progression of a package of children’s online safety bills in Congress, FSC Executive Director Alison Boden traveled to Washington, D.C. to share the adult industry’s experience with age verification policies and proposals for improving legislation currently under consideration at the federal level. The delegation included performer and advocate Allie Eve Knox, Julian Corbett of the OpenAge Initiative, and members of the government affairs team from FS Vector.

Background

On March 5, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the KIDS Act, which incorporates more than a dozen bills related to children’s use of the internet, including the SCREEN Act. The updated language in the bill is more detailed and revised from earlier versions, though concerns about certain provisions remain.

In the Senate, the Commerce Committee, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), is expected to consider its own set of online child safety bills after Congress returns from a two-week recess in mid-April. It is not yet clear which proposals will be included in the Senate package.

Industry Position

FSC has previously engaged with more than 50 congressional offices on issues related to banking fairness but has only recently expanded its outreach on age verification. As a trade association representing segments of the adult industry affected by age verification laws in the United States, the group presented members’ experiences with existing policies and discussed approaches that emphasize privacy and device-based verification.

How it Went

According to FSC, congressional offices from both parties engaged with the delegation’s concerns, including questions about the effectiveness of site-level verification and the privacy implications of requiring users to submit biometric data or government-issued identification. FSC said there was interest among staff in the concept of device-based verification systems. The organization expects to continue discussions and policy briefings in the coming months.

What About the SCREEN Act?

Prospects for federal children’s online safety legislation advancing this year remain uncertain. Congressional staff from both parties have indicated that interest in age verification is expected to continue into the next Congress, which begins in January 2027. As more states adopt age verification laws and the Federal Trade Commission signals potential rulemaking in this area, federal legislation is expected to remain under consideration. Future proposals could include reintroduction of the SCREEN Act or similar measures.

What’s Next?

FSC said it plans to continue outreach to congressional offices and work with other stakeholders, including parent organizations, privacy advocates, and technical experts, on approaches to age verification. The organization said it will provide updates to its members as discussions progress.

BRUSSELS — Four of the world’s largest adult platforms are now under closer scrutiny in Europe, as regulators take a harder look at how — or whether — minors are being kept out.

The European Commission has concluded  that PornHub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos may be violating provisions of the Digital Services Act aimed at protecting minors from adult content.

In May 2025, the Commission began gathering evidence to determine whether the platforms were putting in place age verification tools to safeguard minors from adult content.

According to a statement dated Wednesday, that investigation by the Commission has now indicated that the four sites failed to sufficiently identify and assess the risks their platforms pose to minors accessing their services, and also failed to implement effective measures to prevent minors from accessing their services.

The statement reads, “Despite stating in their Terms of Services that their services are for adults only, all four platforms allow minors to access their platforms by a simple click confirming they are over 18. The Commission finds that ‘self-declaration’ is not an effective measure, and it also considers that additional mitigation measures, such as page blurring, content warnings and ‘Restricted to adults’ labels, deployed by all of these platforms, do not effectively prevent minors from accessing harmful content.”

It is unclear whether these findings refer only to measures in place at the time the investigation began, or whether they reflect the Commission’s assessment of the platforms’ current age assurance measures.

“At this stage, the Commission considers that Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos need to implement privacy preserving age verification measures to protect children from harmful content,” the statement notes. ”These findings do not prejudge the final outcome of the investigation.”

XVideos, XNXX, PornHub and Stripchat will now have the opportunity to review the Commission’s investigation files, reply to the preliminary findings and/or “take measures to remedy the breaches.” If the Commission’s views are confirmed, it may issue fines of up to 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover of each provider, and/or impose penalty payments to compel compliance.

Sometimes, when I read about legal and technological efforts ostensibly designed to protect people (usually minors) from various forms of harmful online content (usually porn), I’m reminded of a meeting I sat in almost 30 years ago.

The purpose of the meeting, as the executive from the company I worked for at the time put it once we’d all gathered in the conference room, was to “figure out how to completely secure the web servers” against potential hacking, denial of service attacks and the like.

A fellow named Randy, who led the company’s IT department, looked right at me after the boss said this. We both began to laugh, uproariously. The boss wasn’t amused, but he knew that if his lead tech and lead marketing guy both thought it was funny, there likely was something out of line about what he’d just said.

“You want a web server to be totally secure?” Randy asked. “The good news is that’s easy. All we have to do is power it down, unplug the network cable from the back and never turn it on again. Of course, that will make the server somewhat less useful than it is now, but it will be entirely hack proof, that much I can promise.”

Lately, Randy’s point has been swimming around in my brain as I read about the state of Utah’s efforts to put the internet porn genie back in the bottle. His point, as I saw it anyway, was that if you want to be online, if you want to be part of that great big global network called the internet, then you’re going to shoulder some risk in the process.

Occasionally, even people who actively lobby the government to restrict and regulate things on the internet, be it porn, social media, misinformation or some other type of content they find problematic, show some recognition of the fact the government can’t truly solve some of their online problems, because some of their problems are endemic to the internet, for lack of a better way to put it.

Take this recent article from the Deseret News, for example.  The article’s primary purpose appears to be to laud the Utah government for its new laws mandating that (some) adult websites must perform age verification checks on their users before displaying anything explicit to those users, as well as putting the onus on adult sites to do something about people use Virtual Private Networks to circumvent the state’s law.

Among other things, the piece introduces readers to a young anti-porn activist named Smith Alley, who talks about his own early exposure to online porn, the problems he says that exposure caused, his evolution into a full-fledged anti-porn activist – and why he thinks Utah’s new law is both great and overdue.

But a funny thing happens along the way. We learn from Alley that, even though he believes parents need the help of the state and of technology companies to solve the problem of minors being exposed to porn, some of the things his own parents did to help him kick his habit involved neither the state nor Big Tech.

“With the help of his parents, Alley decided to jump ‘20 years into the past,’ to a time before unlimited porn was just a click away, replacing his iPod Touch with a flip phone, and screen time with the outdoors,” the article informs us.

So far as I’m aware, there’s no law that incentivizes parents to take smartphones away from their kids and replace them with flip phones, nor is there a company out there encouraging people to do so. And yet, Smith Alley’s parents managed to do it anyway. Imagine that!

Near the end of the article, after learning that Alley is “ecstatic” about the law Utah has passed and is now enforcing and that he’s “proud to live in a state that is family-focused,” he starts to sound less like an anti-porn activist and more like… well, like me.

“(Alley says) these policy shifts must be accompanied by a cohort of parents who are willing to reverse the normalization of ‘iPad kids,’” the article informs us.

“Parents across the country need to really reduce the amount of technology they have in their house,” Alley said. “I just don’t think kids should have that technology in their life. I think we’d be better off without it.”

So, even with age verification laws on the books, even with a means to sue companies who fail to comply with the law and even with a porn tax in place to help offset the alleged harms of internet porn, the bottom line is that parents need to be more involved in the lives of their children – and technology needs to be less central to those same lives.

Just as there’s no way to live a risk-free life (and who would want to, really?), there’s no such thing as a risk-free way to raise your kids. And there’s sure as hell no way to let kids loose on a global computer network and have their journey therein be safe, respectful of their innocence and age appropriate.

When I was a kid, there were TV shows broadcast later than I was allowed to stay up. My parents didn’t want me watching those shows, so they forbade me from doing so. On the occasions when I’d get caught violating their rule, you know what they didn’t do?

They didn’t write to the FCC demanding that those programs be taken off the air. They didn’t get angry at Zenith and RCA and demand that television manufacturers put parental controls on every model they sold. Instead, my parents imposed consequences on me – and let the rest of the damn world live its life.

Yes, the world has changed since I was a kid. But what hasn’t changed – and likely won’t change, even when AI nannies inevitably become all the rage – is the need for parents to be involved in their children’s lives.

And no law, be it one that governs Utah, Texas, or that reaches across the entire country, is going to change that.

BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil is beginning to map out, step by step, how it plans to enforce one of its newest online safety laws—and the roadmap is already taking shape.

The country’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) on Friday released a timeline detailing how it will monitor and enforce age verification requirements under the Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents (Digital ECA), which came into force earlier this week.

Earlier reporting noted that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed a decree on Wednesday establishing guidelines for regulations that will require adult websites to verify the ages of users in Brazil. The rules go beyond simple self-declaration and apply no matter where a site is based. They also extend to marketplaces and delivery apps offering adult or erotic goods and services, which must verify buyers’ ages and prevent minors from accessing those offerings.

Friday’s statement from the ANPD begins to answer the practical question many operators have been quietly asking: how, exactly, will this be enforced?

The agency has broken the process into three stages.

Stage 1 is already underway. Alongside Friday’s release of preliminary guidance for adopting what the agency describes as reliable age verification methods, the ANPD plans to launch an informational webpage about the Digital ECA and begin monitoring how app stores and operating systems are handling age verification tools. In April, the agency will also open a public consultation to collect feedback aimed at refining how the law is interpreted and applied.

Stage 2, scheduled to begin in August, will move into more detailed territory. The ANPD plans to publish more specific guidelines and technical parameters for age verification systems, followed by what it calls an “adaptation and monitoring period” for implementation. Starting in November, updated regulations will outline how inspections will be carried out and how administrative sanctions may be applied. During this phase, oversight will expand to additional regulated entities—including adult websites and platforms—based on insights gathered during the consultation process and assessments of risk across services.

Stage 3, set to begin in January 2027, will shift the focus to active enforcement. The ANPD will carry out inspection actions to ensure compliance and continue refining its procedures for investigations, regulatory oversight, and the application of penalties where violations are identified.

The agency also addressed early benchmarks for how age verification should be implemented, framing them as a way to provide “predictability and legal certainty” for platforms navigating the new requirements.

Those benchmarks echo approaches already seen in the United Kingdom and the European Union, emphasizing factors such as proportionality, accuracy, robustness, reliability, privacy protection and nondiscrimination.

More detailed, technical standards are expected to follow in future guidance, as regulators continue to shape how the law will operate in practice.