The War on Porn

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.

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.”

LONDON—A new Ofcom investigation could put the spotlight on how age verification works when an adult website relies on technology built into a user’s device. The U.K. regulator is examining Aylo’s use of Apple’s age-assurance system on Pornhub and whether it provides the level of protection required under British law.

The focus of the investigation is Pornhub’s use of age signals generated through Apple’s iOS system on devices such as iPhones and iPads. Ofcom wants to establish whether the process is “highly effective” at keeping minors from accessing adult material.

George Lusty, Ofcom’s director of enforcement, said the investigation will examine whether Aylo has met its obligations under the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act of 2023.

“Online age checks are a vital protection to prevent children from encountering inappropriate or harmful material, including pornography,” Lusty said. “We expect tech firms to ensure age checks are highly effective before introducing them. Anything less could leave children at risk.”

The regulator said its initial review did not provide a clear answer on whether Aylo “has complied with its duties to prevent children from encountering pornographic content.” The company’s system relies on an age signal passed between an Apple device and the website to establish that a user has met the applicable age requirement.

Apple rolled out its device-level age-verification technology for users in the United Kingdom with iOS 26.4 in late March 2026. Apple accounts for more than 50 percent of the U.K. mobile phone market, putting the technology on devices used by millions of people.

Ofcom nevertheless has questions about whether Aylo did enough to ensure that underage users could not get around its age-assurance process when accessing its websites from Apple devices in the United Kingdom.

“Providers must also carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of whether their service is likely to be accessed by children,” Ofcom said. “They must do this before making any significant change to the design or operation of their service, or in response to evidence about reduced effectiveness of age checks.”

Ofcom added, “We are concerned that Aylo may not have conducted sufficient due diligence and testing before implementing its new age assurance process. As a result, we are concerned that Aylo’s process may not be highly effective at preventing children from seeing pornography.”

Aylo rejected Ofcom’s concerns. The investigation also comes after Ofcom had previously spoken positively about Apple’s device-level approach to age verification, which the regulator had described as an innovation arising from the implementation of the Online Safety Act. The technology is now being examined in the context of Aylo’s use of it.

“Four months following our successful launch of age verification on Pornhub for eligible adult users in the U.K. who have confirmed their age through Apple’s U.K. age-verification process, Ofcom informed us that they were launching an investigation into our use of Apple’s age assurance in the United Kingdom,” said Alex Kekesi, Aylo’s vice president of brand and community, in a separate statement.

“We are committed to working constructively with Ofcom and Apple in our shared commitment to child protection,” Kekesi added. “Aylo is prepared to provide the technical evidence, testing and supporting assessments on which that position is based. Aylo will cooperate fully with the investigation and looks forward to engaging with the case team.”

Apple, which has a market capitalization of about $4.9 trillion, did not respond to requests for comment. With Ofcom examining Aylo’s use of Apple-generated age signals, the investigation also touches on the practical effectiveness of the technology Apple provides to websites.

“If our investigation finds that a company has broken the law, we can require platforms to take specific steps to come into compliance or to remedy harm caused by the breach,” Ofcom said. “We can also impose fines of up to £18 million (nearly $24 million) or 10 percent of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.”

Corey Silverstein, a U.S.-based attorney who specializes in representing clients in the adult entertainment industry, said the case could offer a useful indication of what Ofcom expects from companies using third-party age-assurance technology.

“What is particularly noteworthy here is that Pornhub apparently did implement age assurance, but Ofcom is questioning whether Aylo conducted sufficient due diligence and testing before relying on age signals provided through Apple,” Silverstein observed. “That said, the message from Ofcom to the broader adult industry is becoming increasingly clear: simply deploying an age-verification solution is not necessarily enough. Operators serving U.K. users should be prepared to demonstrate why their chosen technology satisfies the ‘highly effective’ standard” under the Online Safety Act.

He concluded, “I also think this investigation raises a much larger issue for the technology industry. If platforms cannot reasonably rely upon age-assurance signals generated by major technology companies and device ecosystems, we risk creating a fragmented system in which consumers are repeatedly required to prove their age to individual websites. That has obvious consequences for privacy, data minimization and the overall practicality of online age assurance.”

PARIS — France’s National Assembly is weighing a proposal that would make it a criminal offense to purchase sexual services performed remotely by streamers and custom-content creators, as well as to facilitate those transactions through online platforms.

French law does not currently criminalize prostitution itself, but it penalizes clients of prostitutes and people who financially benefit from prostitution. The Court of Cassation, France’s highest court for civil and criminal matters, has previously determined that online services such as camming do not meet the legal definition of prostitution because they do not involve physical contact with the client.

Bill 3106, a wider measure addressing sexual and gender-based violence against women and children, would expand the definition of prostitution to cover the online purchase of sexual acts. If adopted, the provision would classify platforms facilitating streaming and custom-content transactions as “pimps,” while users who tip streamers or commission custom content could be treated as “johns.”

The proposed change could expose fan and webcam platforms, their users and, potentially, creators who work together to enforcement under the prostitution laws.

The provision follows a similar measure enacted in Sweden last year. At the time, the European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance and Red Umbrella Sweden stated, “Criminalising the purchase of digital sexual services will not stop exploitation. It will only push workers further into the shadows.”

France Unbowed, the left-wing party that holds 71 of the National Assembly’s 577 seats, has called for the proposed ban to be removed from the legislation.

“It does not protect the people it claims to help,” an amendment submitted by France Unbowed states. “On the contrary, criminalizing intermediaries will inevitably lead to the closure of established, legal platforms with traceable activities on which these individuals currently operate. This closure would not eliminate the activity, but would simply shift it to unregulated, less traceable, and far less protective channels, further exposing those involved to the very risks the article purports to combat.”

The Assembly’s Ecologist and Social caucus has also opposed the provision, arguing that remote content creation and in-person sex work “do not present exactly the same issues of protection, health and recognition.” The caucus also said that criminalizing clients has not eliminated sex work, but instead has pushed sex workers toward greater secrecy.

“Extending such a logic to online activities at present therefore does not seem appropriate, unless the aim is to reproduce the same effects in the digital space,” the caucus’s proposed amendment states.

Bill 3106 was referred to a special committee and remains under review as lawmakers consider its provisions.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A federal judge has cleared the way for a legal challenge to Tennessee’s adult website age-verification law, rejecting the state attorney general’s request to dismiss the case.

The Protect Tennessee Minors Act (PTMA), Tennessee’s age-verification law for adult websites, was enacted in 2024, before the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. In November 2024, the Free Speech Coalition and co-plaintiffs MelRose Michaels, sex education platform O.school, sexual wellness retailer Adam & Eve and adult fan platform JustFor.Fans filed a lawsuit challenging the law. A Tennessee district court initially blocked the measure, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later lifted that preliminary injunction, allowing the law to take effect.

After the Supreme Court issued its June 2025 ruling in FSC v. Paxton, FSC representatives said they would return to court to establish what they described as “sensible limits” for age-verification laws and challenge provisions they believe go beyond those limits.

In an amended complaint, FSC and its co-plaintiffs argued that the PTMA violates the First Amendment by placing a content-based burden on protected speech that would not survive even the “intermediate scrutiny” standard established by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs also argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause and that treating website operators as publishers of content created by other providers conflicts with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.

The amended complaint recognized that the Supreme Court’s Paxton decision had changed the legal framework surrounding age-verification laws, but argued that Tennessee had gone beyond the limits established by that ruling.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue him and had failed to provide “sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.”

On Tuesday, Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Skrmetti’s motion, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

Jeff Sandman, counsel for the FSC in the case, praised Lipman’s “thorough, thoughtful, and reasoned decision.”

“We are excited to vigorously pursue our claims as the case enters its next phase,” he said.

FSC board chair Jeffrey Douglas described the decision as “an important winning step in these early stages of the litigation.” He said the court’s finding that the plaintiffs have “standing” was particularly significant because standing is a basic requirement for bringing a federal lawsuit. Douglas also pointed to the court’s decision to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with their constitutional challenges, including claims that the law’s definitions are vague, that retaining age-verification records for seven years raises privacy concerns, that hourly reverification is overly burdensome, that the law is overbroad and underinclusive, and that it is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“None of our claims were dismissed by the court!”

Tuesday’s ruling also notes that although the Constitution recognizes “a valid governmental interest” in addressing obscenity, asserting that interest does not automatically override constitutional protections.

Lipman did not decide whether the PTMA ultimately violates the First Amendment or is unconstitutional. She did, however, find that FSC and the other plaintiffs have standing and have presented a plausible claim. Among the provisions at issue is the requirement that users have their ages verified again every 60 minutes, which Lipman said could be argued to create an increased burden for adults seeking access to sexual content.

Lipman also found it “plausible” that some of the terminology used in the law is vague enough that a person of ordinary intelligence might not be able to determine what conduct is prohibited under the PTMA.

“Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the PTMA as amended may substantially burden more speech than necessary,” Lipman writes.

One potential source of ambiguity is the law’s definition of a covered website as one where a “substantial portion” of the material is harmful to minors. As with several other state age-verification laws, the PTMA defines a “substantial portion” as one-third or more of a website’s total data, but does not spell out precisely how that measurement should be applied.

Lipman noted that the language could leave Tennessee with an “excessively subjective” standard for determining what qualifies as a “substantial portion.” She did not determine whether that ambiguity makes the law unconstitutional, but agreed that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the terms were unconstitutionally vague.

If the court eventually determines that the “substantial portion” or “one third” provision is unconstitutionally vague, the decision could have implications beyond Tennessee because similar language appears in age-verification laws adopted in other states.

Lipman also found plausible the plaintiffs’ argument that the PTMA could be preempted by Section 230 protections.

The judge further ruled that “intermediate scrutiny” is the appropriate standard of review for the case. FSC had argued that the stricter “strict scrutiny” standard should apply, while Tennessee argued for intermediate scrutiny. Although the ruling allows the lawsuit to continue, applying intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny could make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to establish that the law violates the First Amendment.