Pennsylvania Lawmakers Advance Online Age Verification Bill

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania lawmakers are moving forward with a proposed age verification measure aimed specifically at adult entertainment websites, putting another online age-restriction bill before the state Senate.

The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee voted earlier this week to advance Senate Bill 603 with limited bipartisan support. If approved by the full Senate and signed by Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, the measure would require Pennsylvania residents to verify their age, including through a state-issued identification card, when visiting websites where at least one-third of the material consists of adult content. Republican state Sen. Cris Dush, the bill’s lead sponsor, has described the proposal as a way to hold large technology companies accountable.

“When it comes to the protection of children from exposure to pornography, the only verification measure, if any, is clicking a button indicating you’re 18 years old,” Dush said during Monday’s committee hearing. “Why should we not protect our kids from pornography websites the same way we protect them from online gambling?”

The bill has drawn opposition from stakeholders and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which have raised concerns about censorship and data privacy. Under the current language, the legislation defines a “reasonable age verification method” as verification “through an independent, third-party age verification service that compares the personal information entered by the individual who is seeking access to the material that is available from a commercially available database or aggregate of databases that is regularly used by government agencies and businesses for age and identity verification.”

SB 603 must now be considered by the full Senate before it can move forward. Earlier efforts to establish age verification requirements in Pennsylvania have failed amid similar concerns about civil liberties and privacy.

State Sen. Maria Collett, a Democrat representing Montgomery, was one of two members of the Judiciary Committee to vote against the bill. Collett said she supported the goal of the legislation but viewed the lack of specific data privacy protections as a significant concern. She said, “I think with the proliferation of Flock cameras, Ring cameras, and people sort of being online all the time no matter what, our data is increasingly not becoming our own.”

Mike Stabile, director of public policy for the adult industry trade association Free Speech Coalition, raised concerns similar to those expressed by Collett and other opponents.

“We’ve been engaged in Pennsylvania for some time, and working to educate lawmakers on device-based solutions,” Stabile said. “The last-minute vote on Monday on a previously stalled bill appears to be more about election-year politics than actual policy. Still, we are working with allies in Pennsylvania and beyond to push back on this and other ineffective and dangerous legislation.”

Lawrence Walters, an attorney who represents adult industry clients, said the Pennsylvania proposal raises concerns because similar legislation in other states has included broad private rights of action. SB 603 contains what is described as a “bounty” provision, similar to provisions adopted in states including Utah. Under that approach, enforcement can involve private lawsuits against websites covered by the law and accused of violating its requirements.

“SB 603 is another age-gating bill sold as child protection,” Walters said. “What it actually does is force adults to hand over private personal data to access lawful speech. That is a First Amendment problem, not a technical upgrade.”

Walters continued, “The private right of action makes the bill worse. Every site that might be covered faces bounty-hunter litigation. Over-blocking will be the rational response.”

“If lawmakers want to help parents, fund filters and enforce existing dissemination-to-minors laws,” he said. “Do not conscript every adult site into an identification system and then act surprised when the data leaks.”

Corey Silverstein, another attorney representing adult industry clients, also focused on the potential conflict between protecting minors and preserving adults’ access to constitutionally protected speech.

“The adult industry has repeatedly made clear that protecting minors from inappropriate content is a legitimate and important objective,” Silverstein said. “The real question is whether a particular law accomplishes that objective without unnecessarily burdening adults’ access to constitutionally protected expression or creating unacceptable privacy and data-security risks.”

“This is another example of the increasingly fragmented state-by-state regulatory environment that online adult businesses are being forced to navigate,” Silverstein added.