The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
INDIANAPOLIS — A legal fight unfolding in Indiana courts is putting a familiar question under a bright light: how far must an adult website go to keep minors out — and what counts as “reasonable” when technology keeps finding new ways around the rules?
This week, Aylo asked a Marion Superior Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Indiana, which accuses the company of violating the state’s age verification law by failing to stop users who bypass location restrictions with VPNs and similar tools.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed the complaint late last year, arguing that the safeguards used by Pornhub and other Aylo-operated sites do not meet the requirements of the state’s law. According to the complaint, the sites rely primarily on blocking users whose internet addresses show they are located in Indiana — a method the state says can be easily sidestepped.
The complaint states that IP-based restrictions used by the company “are insufficient to comply with Indiana’s Age Verification Law because Indiana residents, including minors, can still easily access the Defendants’ websites with a VPN IP or proxy address from another jurisdiction or through the use of location spoofing software.”
Aylo, in its motion to dismiss, counters that the state is stretching the law far beyond what it actually requires. In a supporting brief filed with the court, the company argues that Indiana’s interpretation of the statute violates several constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause.
“Plaintiff takes the position that website operators cannot avoid violating the AVL by blocking Internet traffic from Indiana IP addresses unless those technological restrictions also prevent users from circumventing the geoblocks through VPNs routing traffic through IP addresses associated with other states,” the company’s brief states. “But the AVL contains no such requirement.”
According to the state’s complaint, investigators working for Rokita’s office accessed Pornhub and other Aylo sites from Indiana by routing their internet connection through a VPN server that produced a Chicago-based IP address. Because the sites allowed access under those circumstances, the state argues that they “lacked any reasonable form of age verification.”
Aylo disputes that conclusion. The company says that since the law took effect, it has blocked all internet addresses associated with Indiana from accessing its sites directly. In its filing, Aylo also criticizes the state for deliberately bypassing those protections through what it describes as “technological subterfuge.”
“The statute mandates only ‘reasonable age verification’ — not technologically infallible measures that anticipate and defeat every possible user circumvention tool,” the brief argues.
Aylo also characterizes geoblocking as a widely used solution across the internet. The company’s filing describes the practice as “a widely recognized, industry-standard method of geographic access control used by major streaming and content platforms worldwide.”
From the company’s perspective, Indiana’s lawsuit goes too far. The brief argues that the state’s interpretation of its law would impose an unnecessary burden on protected speech, exceeding the limits set by courts when evaluating age verification laws.
In particular, Aylo points to the standard established in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case that allowed state age verification laws to stand so long as they meet what courts call “intermediate scrutiny.” Aylo maintains that Indiana’s interpretation of its law fails that test and therefore violates the First Amendment.
The company also raises concerns about due process. According to the brief, Indiana is attempting to apply its law beyond the state’s borders without clear guidance, which Aylo says makes the statute “unconstitutionally vague” under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Another argument centers on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Aylo contends that the state’s interpretation effectively forces companies to regulate activity far outside Indiana’s jurisdiction.
“To comply with Plaintiff’s interpretation of the AVL, a publisher, such as Aylo Freesites, would need to impose age verification nationwide, and perhaps worldwide, so as to account for the possibility that an Indiana resident might use a VPN to disguise their location as from another jurisdiction,” the brief states, adding that such an approach “impermissibly extends Indiana law beyond its territorial boundaries.”
The company also challenges whether the court even has jurisdiction in the case. According to the filing, the state’s argument assumes that Indiana residents may still access the sites by circumventing restrictions through VPNs or proxy servers. Aylo asks the court to reject that premise, noting that the company blocked Indiana IP addresses specifically to avoid operating in the state.
Aylo further disputes the state’s claim that it violated Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The company’s brief says the complaint offers little more than what it calls “a word salad of accusations,” while failing to identify any actual consumer transaction or conduct that would violate the law.
The lawsuit arrives amid a broader debate across the United States about whether age verification rules can realistically keep minors away from adult content — particularly as tools like VPNs make it easier to appear as though a user is browsing from somewhere else.
Lawmakers in several states have begun exploring ways to address that issue. In Utah, for example, legislators recently passed a bill that would hold adult sites responsible if minors circumvent geolocation safeguards. The measure now awaits action from Gov. Spencer Cox.
In Ohio, a proposal known as the “Innocence Act” would require adult sites to use a geofencing system maintained by a licensed location-technology provider that could dynamically monitor a user’s physical location to determine whether they are inside the state and therefore subject to age verification requirements.
At the federal level, the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act also addresses the issue. The proposal would establish nationwide age verification requirements and directs websites to take “reasonable measures” to address attempts to bypass those safeguards.
For now, the Indiana case remains at an early stage. The state has until April 10 to respond to Aylo’s motion to dismiss — and the court will then decide whether the case moves forward.
Behind the legal language and constitutional arguments lies a question lawmakers across the country are still wrestling with: when technology keeps changing the rules of the game, what does “reasonable” protection actually look like?
