The War on Porn

SALT LAKE CITY — A disputed provision of Utah’s age verification law that could make adult websites liable when minors use geolocation workarounds to evade the state’s requirements will remain on hold for now, extending a pause that began before the measure was scheduled to take effect in May.

Pornhub parent company Aylo filed a complaint in April with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, seeking to block the “deemed-location” provision of SB 73, which was signed into law in March. The renewed “period of forbearance” technically applies only to websites operated by Aylo. Industry attorney Corey Silverstein, however, said it would be impractical for Utah to enforce the provision against other websites or companies before the court rules on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Silverstein cautioned that companies should consult their own legal counsel because they could still face enforcement actions.

The law’s “deemed location” provision states: “An individual is considered to be accessing the website from this state if the individual is actually located in the state, regardless of whether the individual is using a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to disguise or misrepresent the individual’s geographic location to make it appear that the individual is accessing a website from a location outside this state.”

In its complaint, Aylo argued that the law’s deemed-location and VPN provisions could expose adult entertainment companies to civil penalties and possible criminal liability unless they apply Utah’s age verification requirements “for every user of their platforms, anywhere in the world.” Aylo maintains that this would amount to “impermissible extraterritorial legislation” because Utah is “projecting its policy choices onto conduct occurring entirely outside its borders, in states and countries that have made different legislative judgments.”

The complaint further argued that the law violates the dormant Commerce Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause by “imposing significant burdens on, and purporting to regulate, the national and international markets for adult entertainment.”

In May, Aylo and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection reached an agreement establishing a period of forbearance during which the VPN provisions would not be enforced against Aylo through Sept. 3. The agreement also allowed for a longer pause if the court needed additional time to reach a decision.

The situation shifted again earlier this month when the Utah Division of Consumer Protection proposed a rule for implementing SB 73. Among its provisions are standards for determining what constitutes an acceptable approach to dealing with “geolocation obfuscation.” The proposed rule is scheduled to take effect Oct. 8.

Following that development, the parties agreed Thursday to extend the period of forbearance through Oct. 22, two weeks after the proposed rule is scheduled to take effect. The pause could end sooner if the court rules on Aylo’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction.

The parties’ joint stipulation states: “Although Plaintiffs believe that the proposed rule is fundamentally flawed and does not eliminate their claims or the need for relief, this Period of Continued Forbearance allows Plaintiffs to participate in that rulemaking process without the threat of liability in the interim. Additionally, this Period of Continued Forbearance provides the Court with additional time to resolve the current motion for a preliminary injunction, including the discretion to await the outcome of the rulemaking before deciding the motion.”

Utah’s VPN provision comes amid broader concern over the use of tools that can conceal a user’s location and allow age verification requirements to be circumvented. The issue has prompted efforts at both the state and federal levels to address what lawmakers view as a practical gap in enforcement.

The Utah Division of Consumer Protection will accept public comments on the proposed rule through Oct. 1.

WASHINGTON — A newly introduced bill in Congress could limit the ability of U.S. courts to enforce foreign laws that restrict speech protected by the First Amendment, a proposal that could potentially extend to some foreign age verification requirements.

Republican Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio introduced the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act on Thursday. The legislation would prevent U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing “a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.”

Under the bill, a “foreign censorship law” is defined as any foreign law that “has the primary purpose or substantial effect of restricting or penalizing expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association; targets expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association based on its content, viewpoint, or speaker identity; or compels disclosure that would reasonably chill that expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association; and would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution if recognized in the United States.”

That definition could raise questions about whether age verification requirements, including provisions contained in the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA), might qualify as foreign censorship laws. If they do, the GRANITE Act could potentially prevent U.S. courts from assisting with enforcement actions against American adult websites, including efforts to collect foreign fines. Governments abroad would still retain the ability to take action within their own jurisdictions, such as blocking access to U.S.-based websites.

Free-speech advocates have argued that age verification requirements can restrict expression based on content and potentially chill lawful speech, two considerations that could factor into whether such measures are classified as censorship under the GRANITE Act. The legislation was conceived by attorney Preston Byrne, who has represented online forum 4chan in its dispute with U.K. media regulator Ofcom over efforts to require the platform to implement age verification measures intended to prevent minors from accessing pornography.

The Supreme Court, however, addressed the First Amendment implications of age verification in its decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. The court declared that “the First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age.” The court upheld the constitutionality of state age verification laws when they only “incidentally” burden adults’ protected speech. That ruling suggests foreign age verification laws meeting the same standard might not qualify as “foreign censorship” under the GRANITE Act.

Industry attorney Lawrence Walters said that if the GRANITE Act becomes law, U.S. companies facing foreign judgments stemming from alleged violations of age verification requirements could argue that the underlying laws meet the legislation’s definition of foreign censorship.

“It would be up to a reviewing court whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Paxton precludes these arguments,” Walters explained. “Each foreign law would need to be independently evaluated against the holding of Paxton. Some foreign laws go far beyond sexual expression when defining ‘harmful content.’ Therefore, the Paxton reasoning may not apply to some of these laws, thereby potentially shielding U.S. operators from foreign judgments.”

Industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein also said the GRANITE Act could give U.S.-based companies a significant defense against domestic enforcement of certain foreign online age verification laws if those requirements meet the bill’s definition of censorship, “particularly when their application depends on the content being accessed or when they require users to disclose identifying information as a condition of accessing protected speech.”

“The analysis would ultimately depend on the precise coverage, verification methods, privacy protections and enforcement mechanisms of the particular foreign law,” Silverstein said. “The more difficult requirement is that recognition of the foreign law must conflict with the First Amendment.

“In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Supreme Court held that Texas’ requirement for age verification on websites substantially devoted to sexual material harmful to minors imposed only an incidental burden on adults’ protected speech,” Silverstein elaborated. “Accordingly, if a foreign AV law is directed specifically at minors’ access to material that is obscene as to minors, allows adults access after reasonable age verification, and is adequately tailored, then Paxton would support an argument that recognizing the law would not conflict with the First Amendment. In that circumstance, the law might fall outside GRANITE’s definition.”

Rulli is not alone among elected officials in supporting federal legislation addressing the enforcement of foreign speech restrictions. Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri said last year that he planned to introduce similar legislation. Wyoming lawmakers also considered a state version of the GRANITE Act earlier this year. The measure cleared the state House but did not advance in the state Senate.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly described European content regulations as threats to free speech. The administration has also imposed visa restrictions on EU figures it views as leading “efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.” Those actions could signal administration support for the GRANITE Act if the legislation advances through Congress.

The GRANITE Act has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said his administration has implemented what it describes as “first-in-the-nation restrictions” barring recipients from using state-administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to purchase luxury and non-essential goods, including pornography.

Florida distributes federal TANF assistance and other funding through its Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) program. Qualifying residents receive benefits through EBT cards designed to help eligible families pay for basic and continuing needs, including food, clothing, rent, certain household supplies and personal care items.

“Taxpayer-funded assistance should help families put food on the table, keep the lights on, purchase clothing, provide for their children and overcome barriers on the path toward independence,” the governor said.

The restrictions apply to what DeSantis’ office categorized as “inappropriate, luxury and non-essential items.” Along with pornography, prohibited purchases include gambling, video games, tobacco and nicotine products, entertainment subscriptions, other drugs, intoxicants, alcohol, fortune-telling sessions and psychic services.

“Under Gov. DeSantis’ leadership, Florida continues to ensure government assistance serves as a bridge to greater stability and independence while safeguarding taxpayer resources,” said Kate Williams, the Florida interim secretary of the Department of Children and Families.

SAN FRANCISCO — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that an adult tube website remains protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, affirming a lower court decision in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a Jane Doe plaintiff.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), along with senior counsel Dani Pinter and attorneys from several other law firms, filed the lawsuit against subsidiaries and corporations connected to WebGroup Czech Republic, the Czechia-based parent company of the XVideos and XNXX tube sites.

Two members of the three-judge panel voted to uphold a 2025 lower court ruling that found the plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” could not use an exception under FOSTA to overcome Section 230 immunity for the adult tube site, its ownership group and affiliated properties. The third judge concurred in part and dissented in part.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the dismissal of all claims brought on Doe’s behalf, finding that WebGroup was protected by Section 230 immunity.

NCOSE filed the federal class action lawsuit in March 2021, with Doe serving as the lead plaintiff. NCOSE and co-counsel from several personal injury law firms, including Kazerouni Law Group, Levin Papantonio Rafferty, the Zarzaur Law Firm, Laffey Bucci & Kent and Conrad O’Brien, brought the case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit initially alleged that WebGroup knowingly hosted and profited from child sexual abuse material depicting Jane Doe, who was reportedly trafficked and sold for sex while she was a minor. At least four videos depicting Doe’s abuse were allegedly hosted on WebGroup-owned platforms, including XVideos through the “official channel” of an alleged “content partner” account.

During the litigation, Doe’s attorneys argued that WebGroup Czech Republic participated in a sex trafficking venture with the “content partner,” which is considered a third party under standard interpretations of Section 230. Attorneys for the website maintained that Section 230 protected the platform and its owners from liability for the conduct of a third-party user.

Section 230 has played a central role in internet law by providing legal protections to “interactive computer services” that allow third-party users to publish content. The statute generally protects covered platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by third parties while allowing them to moderate user-generated material.

Doe’s attorneys sought to rely on FOSTA-SESTA to overcome those protections. That argument had previously kept the litigation moving, particularly after the Ninth Circuit reversed an earlier district court decision in 2024 that relied on Section 230 immunity to halt the case against XVideos over the user-uploaded material depicting Doe.

FOSTA-SESTA, enacted during President Donald Trump’s first term and supported by NCOSE, modified Section 230 protections to allow certain civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions involving online platforms and content connected to prostitution or sex trafficking.

The law has also drawn criticism from sex workers’ rights advocates, who argue that its broad provisions have pushed some consensual commercial sex work offline and increased risks for sex workers. FOSTA-SESTA has faced constitutional challenges as well, although courts have upheld the law.

In the latest development in Doe’s case against WebGroup, the Ninth Circuit determined that her attorneys had not sufficiently established a legal basis for applying the “FOSTA exception” to remove the defendants’ claimed Section 230 immunity.

The three judges wrote in their August 12 decision, “For Doe to invoke the FOSTA exception, WebGroup ‘must knowingly benefit from and knowingly assist, support, or facilitate sex trafficking activities,’ which ‘requires actual knowledge and a causal relationship between affirmative conduct furthering the sex-trafficking venture and receipt of a benefit.'”

“Doe alleges that WebGroup maintains ‘profit-sharing relationships [with] sex traffickers, such as the channel partner who distributed Jane Doe’s abuse videos on the XVideos,'” explains the court’s decision. “But despite using the term ‘sex traffickers,’ Doe does not allege that this channel partner ‘recruit[ed], entice[d], harbor[ed], transport[ed], provide[d], obtain[ed], advertise[d], maintain[ed], patronize[d], or solicit[ed]’ her ‘to engage in a commercial sex act,’ as defined in the statute.”

“Nor does Doe adequately plead WebGroup’s knowledge of her sex trafficking: Doe alleges that she ‘reached out to XVideos and XNXX multiple times over the years, beginning in at least 2017, requesting her abuse videos be removed,'” the judges ruled.

The court therefore found that Doe’s allegations did not sufficiently establish the required legal connection between WebGroup and the sex trafficking venture that victimized her.

“Therefore, Doe fails to adequately allege WebGroup’s knowledge of and participation in sex trafficking activities for the FOSTA exception to apply,” the decision concluded.

Corey Silverstein, a First Amendment attorney whose practice includes adult industry clients, said he welcomed the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

He said, “I am pleased that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of every claim against WebGroup. The court correctly applied established Section 230 precedent, recognizing that neutral platform functions do not make a website the creator or developer of unlawful third-party content.”

Silverstein added, “The court also confirmed that FOSTA’s exception requires plausible allegations of actual knowledge and affirmative participation in a specific sex-trafficking venture—not conclusory labels or generalized notice.”

He concluded, “The underlying allegations are unquestionably serious, but liability must still be determined according to the facts pleaded and the requirements Congress enacted.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., sent a letter Friday to Montreal-based Aylo and its ownership group, Ottawa private equity firm Ethical Capital Partners, responding to correspondence the company sent last week to state and federal officials. Aylo’s letter went to lawmakers and officials across 25 states where site-based age verification laws are currently in effect.

Aylo’s original letter outlined its support for age verification while arguing that verification should take place through operating systems or mobile device settings. The company has opposed the site-by-site and state-by-state approach now used across much of the United States, as well as in countries including France and Spain.

In a sharply worded two-page letter addressed to Ethical Capital Partners Vice President of Compliance Solomon Friedman, a Canadian criminal defense attorney and academic, Lankford accused Aylo of having “no interest in protecting children.”

Lankford writes, “Pornhub’s letter suggests that tech companies should be responsible for protecting children from pornography. Lawmakers can and should hold tech companies accountable for the harm they pose to children. But that should not preclude state and federal lawmakers from holding platforms like Pornhub accountable for the harm it causes.

“Pornhub’s letter fails to say the quiet part out loud: Pornhub would lose customers if children were prohibited from viewing its content,” Lankford asserts.

Aylo disputed Lankford’s characterization in response, with a spokesperson calling the senator’s claims factually inaccurate.

“Senator Lankford and Pornhub completely agree—effective age verification needs to be in place to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content on the internet,” the spokesperson said in a statement. The same statement was provided earlier Friday to Fox News Digital, which was the first news organization to receive Lankford’s letter from his office.

“Unfortunately, the way the Senator proposes has been proven to be ineffective everywhere it’s been attempted, including in Oklahoma,” the spokesperson added. The statement referred to the effects of Oklahoma’s age verification law, under which Aylo has restricted access to its websites for most users in the state, although the sites can still be reached through virtual private networks, or VPNs.

“Our site is one of [the] few that is currently complying with the law in Oklahoma, meaning the real risk to Oklahoma citizens of all ages lies on the hundreds of thousands of unregulated sites that remain accessible and are seeing increased traffic,” explained the Aylo spokesperson.

“We are the only free site that requires verification from uploaders as well as proof of consent from all depicted in content on our platform,” the spokesperson added. “The safety of our community is our top priority—this includes a zero-tolerance policy with respect to minors on our platform. We look forward to further addressing the Senator’s concerns in our reply to him.”

Aylo has not said whether its planned response to Lankford will be released publicly. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade organization, also disputed Lankford’s characterization of Aylo as deliberately targeting minors through marketing and sexually explicit material.

“No legitimate adult company is targeting minors,” stated Alison Boden, executive director of the FSC. “Aside from the multitude of moral and ethical issues, minor access is a financial and resource drain on adult businesses. Minor access drives up server and support costs, corrupts data, and provides no business value—minors are not consumers.”

She added, “Adult sites have been trying to block minors for over 20 years, developing protocols and systems, like the Restricted to Adults label, to make it easy for filters and devices to block our sites. We have every reason not to want minors on our platforms, and no reason to target them.”

The Restricted to Adults (RTA) label was developed and is managed by the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP). The organization also operates a privately funded reporting line for suspected child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse material.

Aylo uses the RTA label across its websites and submits reports to the CyberTipline program operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan proposal now before the U.S. Senate could move the United States closer to a nationwide digital age-assurance standard designed to prevent minors under 18 from accessing age-restricted online content.

The legislation is being led by Democratic Sens. Andy Kim of New Jersey and Adam Schiff of California, alongside Republican Sens. Cynthia Lummis and John Barrasso of Wyoming. Known as the Digital Age Assurance Act, the measure would create a federal and state compliance framework requiring age verification to take place at the operating-system level of internet-connected devices rather than through individual websites.

The proposal closely mirrors legislation approved by California lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2025. That law is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, and directs companies that develop and operate mobile device operating systems to implement a system allowing users to verify their ages efficiently.

Under that approach, users would complete age verification before downloading or purchasing apps and digital content through platforms such as Google Play and Apple’s App Store.

Supporters say the California framework offers a model for the federal Digital Age Assurance Act, which they believe could balance online safety with protections for free expression.

“We owe it to parents and kids to put guardrails in place before more harm is done. The Digital Age Assurance Act puts kids’ data privacy first as we make sure Congress and tech companies do their part to make online spaces safer for our kids,” Kim said.

Lummis also voiced support for the legislation, saying, “In Wyoming, we believe protecting our kids and protecting our freedoms go hand in hand, and this bill proves you don’t have to sacrifice one for the other.” Her comments come as many existing age-verification laws around the country rely on methods such as government-issued identification or AI-powered facial analysis.

“That’s why I’m proud to work with Senators Kim, Lummis, and Barrasso on a comprehensive federal age-assurance framework that follows California’s important work in this space and ensures that the digital content kids see is age-appropriate and that their privacy is protected from invasive data collection,” Schiff added.

Age-verification legislation has expanded rapidly at both the state and federal levels, advancing much faster than many observers in the adult entertainment and technology sectors had anticipated. More than half of U.S. states have now enacted some form of age-verification law or regulation, with many of the earliest measures adopted in Republican-led states, including Wyoming.

Although the first wave of laws aimed at adult entertainment websites largely emerged from conservative Republican lawmakers, age-verification proposals have since gained bipartisan support, reflecting broader efforts to establish verified, non-anonymous online environments.

In response, companies and organizations within the adult entertainment industry have sought approaches that reduce the amount of personal data collected by age-verification providers and other technology companies.

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), the trade organization representing the adult entertainment industry, has supported legislation built around a device-level verification model similar to the Senate proposal. Executive Director Alison Boden said she and members of her team met with Kim and his staff while the Digital Age Assurance Act was being drafted. She noted that it remains unclear whether the legislation will ultimately advance through Congress.

“We’re thrilled to see a bipartisan bill that takes an effective, device-based approach to proving age online,” Boden said. She added, however, that the current language may create concerns because it does not yet provide adults 18 and older with the same type of “privacy-preserving solution” envisioned for protecting minors.

If approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, the Digital Age Assurance Act would establish a nationwide device-based age-assurance system that generates “age brackets.” Apps and websites would receive those signals instead of collecting users’ exact ages.

The legislation would also limit how age-related information is collected, shared and used. It would prohibit the sale of children’s personal data to data brokers, ban its use for profiling or targeted advertising, and establish a national baseline for online child privacy protections while maintaining access to online services. Boden said the FSC is continuing discussions with lawmakers to ensure the age-bracket system also addresses privacy considerations for adults.

The bill would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to enforce its provisions alongside state attorneys general. Proposed penalties include civil fines of up to $2,500 for each negligent violation and up to $7,500 for each knowing or intentional violation, with those amounts potentially multiplied based on the number of affected children.

The proposal has also drawn interest because it aligns with the position of one of the industry’s most prominent supporters of device-based age verification.

“While we will not comment on hypotheticals, we are glad to see lawmakers recognize that kid-safe phones can provide a more consistent and privacy-protective way to help keep minors away from age-restricted content,” an Aylo spokesperson said. As site-level age-verification laws have taken effect in several jurisdictions, Aylo and its parent company, Ethical Capital Partners, have discontinued service in some states and countries rather than comply with certain requirements.

“Since April 2026, when Apple’s age verification solution was implemented in the U.K., Pornhub has experimented with Apple’s solution and has seen it successfully prevent minors from accessing adult content,” the spokesperson said, referring to Apple’s age-signal system introduced in the United Kingdom.

“It is our view that children in the U.K. using Apple devices with the most up-to-date version of iOS are benefiting from the strongest level of protection from age-inappropriate content online,” the spokesperson said. “Adult sites are blocked by default, and VPNs do not work to circumvent these blocks.

“We are determined to be part of this solution and want to collaborate with government, civil society and tech partners to arrive at an effective kid-safe-by-default solution,” the spokesperson added. The company maintains that many existing site-level age-verification systems remain vulnerable to VPN use and continue to raise privacy concerns.

WASHINGTON — A key Senate committee is scheduled to consider the SCREEN Act during a markup session this week, advancing another effort to establish nationwide age verification requirements for people seeking access to adult content online.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act in early 2025, marking his third attempt to move the legislation through Congress. Republican Rep. Mary Miller introduced a companion measure in the House. Even so, both bills remained dormant for roughly a year.

That changed in March, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee folded a revised version of the SCREEN Act into the broader Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, a package bringing together several online safety proposals. The House approved the KIDS Act in June, but the legislation has since run into resistance in the Senate. The objections have centered not on the SCREEN Act itself, but on disagreements over language contained in the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), another major proposal included in the package. The Senate version of KOSA is also scheduled for consideration during Wednesday’s markup session.

The Senate committee’s decision to place the original version of the SCREEN Act back on its agenda suggests lawmakers may be looking to advance individual online safety bills separately rather than continue pursuing them as part of the House’s broader KIDS Act package.

Under the SCREEN Act, violations of its age verification requirements would be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s ban on unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Civil penalties could reach as much as $10,000 for each violation.

Free Speech Coalition Director of Public Policy Mike Stabile described the SCREEN Act as a “particularly egregious” national age verification proposal.

“It would not only impact adult sites, but any platform that allows ‘harmful’ material, including X, Reddit and Amazon,” Stabile said, adding that Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden recently traveled to Washington to meet with lawmakers serving on the Senate committee.

“We’ve been especially aggressive in our efforts since it was placed on the Senate Commerce calendar last week,” Stabile said. “We’re currently working with our allies and sounding the alarm in and out of the industry on this bill. FSC members should be calling their senators telling them to oppose the SCREEN Act.”

The Free Speech Coalition has also created a resource to help people contact their representatives about the legislation and is encouraging members to use it and share it with colleagues, members and fans.