Aylo Wins Injunction in Utah Case Challenging VPN Ban

SALT LAKE CITY—A federal judge in Utah has temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law that prohibits the use of virtual private networks to get around age verification requirements, granting Aylo a preliminary injunction this week.

Senate Bill 73 prevents users from employing VPNs to circumvent Utah’s age verification law.

Two Aylo-affiliated companies sued Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection and Department of Commerce in late April, leading to an initial 120-day agreement delaying enforcement of the provision.

That delay was later extended into October through a mutual agreement filed with the court at the end of August. The VPN provisions are now temporarily enjoined while the lawsuit proceeds.

“We are pleased with the Court’s ruling and appreciate its careful consideration of the issues,” an Aylo spokesperson said. “We remain committed to complying with applicable law while safeguarding user privacy and security.”

The spokesperson added, “Although Aylo believes that Utah’s age-verification law is not sufficiently protective of users’ privacy, that law is not at issue in this case. To be clear, age verification is a good thing, if done correctly. We firmly believe age verification can make the internet a safer space for everyone, when it is done right.”

“We have long worked with governments around the world to better protect kids online,” Aylo added. “Age verification legislation in other jurisdictions is failing for a number of reasons, including its inconsistent and ineffective enforcement at scale, leaving hundreds of thousands of platforms with age inappropriate content accessible, most of which do not have content moderation or uploader verification measures.”

U.S. District Judge David Barlow of the District of Utah determined that “[the] harm of a constitutional violation is greater than Utah’s interest in enforcing a statutory provision that likely is unconstitutional.”

SB 73 requires adult websites to verify the age of users who are “actually located” in Utah, even when they use proxy technology, including VPNs and proxy servers designed to conceal or spoof an IP address.

“Because Aylo has shown a substantial likelihood of a constitutional violation and irreparable harm from that violation, ‘it follows that the balance of equities and the public interest’ are in its favor,” Barlow wrote. The judge, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, also found that requiring websites to remove technology masking a user’s location in order to determine their “actual location” likely violates the dormant Commerce Clause. That constitutional doctrine limits state restrictions on interstate commerce.

“The court finds this harm sufficient and does not consider whether Aylo’s other alleged harms are irreparable,” Barlow noted.

He concluded, “Aylo argues that because it is impossible to always determine where a user is actually located, Utah’s actual-location provision will require it to age-verify all users, wherever they might actually be located, or face liability. As a result, the actual-location provision operates as an impermissible direct regulation of wholly out-of-state conduct.”

The ruling is significant because the judge found that Utah’s authority is tied to web activity that can be established as originating within the state. Because VPN software is designed to operate across geographic boundaries, the decision raises constitutional questions about whether a state can prohibit its use beyond its own borders.

Corey Silverstein, an attorney who represents adult industry clients, described the ruling as a step in the right direction.

“The VPN provision placed an impossible burden on adult websites by effectively requiring them to determine the true physical location of users who may be utilizing technology specifically designed to conceal that information,” Silverstein said. “The practical consequence was potentially forcing websites to apply Utah’s requirements to users across the country and around the world.”

He added, “I applaud Aylo for committing the resources necessary to challenge this provision and for continuing to fight laws that raise serious constitutional and practical concerns for the adult industry.”