The War on Porn

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has agreed to suspend a lawsuit challenging a Utah law that seeks to prevent people from using virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass the state’s age verification requirements, giving lawmakers time to consider changes to the legislation.

A joint filing by Utah officials and Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub, confirms that both sides have agreed to pause the litigation. The dispute centers on whether Utah can prohibit the use of VPNs to circumvent age verification requirements and how the state defines a user’s “deemed location.”

“In light of the Court’s recent ruling regarding [Senate Bill (SB)] 73, the parties anticipate that the Utah Legislature may consider amending the statute,” reads the joint filing submitted by attorneys representing Aylo and the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

The attorneys referred to a recent decision by U.S. District Judge David Barlow of the District of Utah, who granted Aylo a preliminary injunction that initially blocked enforcement of SB 73.

“Rather than continuing to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims against the current version of SB 73, the parties therefore agree that staying further proceedings in this case would be the most efficient course for both the parties and the Court to see what, if any, amendments the Legislature makes to the provision of SB 73 challenged in this case,” the attorneys argued. Judge Barlow approved the request, postponing further proceedings until after the Utah Legislature adjourns next year, according to court documents.

Lawrence Walters, an attorney who represents clients in the adult entertainment industry, described the development as “sensible.”

“Rather than forcing continued litigation over a provision both sides appear to recognize may need revision, the parties’ joint request for a stay allows the legislature an opportunity to address the technical and legal realities of the internet,” Walters said.

“Perfect geolocation does not exist, and laws that ignore that fact risk imposing extraterritorial burdens, chilling protected speech, and creating unworkable compliance obligations for platforms,” he added. “We hope Utah lawmakers use this pause to repeal the law, and potentially craft a more carefully tailored approach that respects both legitimate child-protection goals and the First Amendment rights of adult creators, platforms, and consenting adults. Any age verification mandate must be constitutionally sound and technologically realistic.”

Corey Silverstein, another attorney representing adult industry clients, expressed a similar view in an email. Silverstein said, “Pausing this case gives Utah lawmakers an opportunity to correct a provision that demands more than websites can reliably deliver.

“A website operator should not face liability simply because a user conceals their location through a VPN,” Silverstein explained. “Protecting minors is a legitimate objective, but it does not give Utah unlimited authority to impose its requirements on internet users around the world.”

One night around 30 years ago, I went out to a bar with some friends to shoot pool and have a few beers. It was a neighborhood bar I’d been to several dozen times without ever showing my ID, a transaction probably deemed unnecessary by the bartenders, who took one look at my quite full beard and rightly concluded it wasn’t something a person under 21 years of age could grow.

There was a new guy tending bar on that night, however, one who was perhaps feeling pressure to do everything “by the book” due to his newness. Whatever his reason, he demanded to see my ID. I duly produced my driver’s license – which the bartender noted had recently expired. Thus, he said, I couldn’t shoot pool or drink beer in his bar.

The assertion was incorrect, as one of the patrons seated at the bar helpfully noted. Normally, I wouldn’t put much stock in the legal opinion of a random bar patron, but this regular customer also happened to be an attorney – who represented the bar’s owner, among other local clients.

“The purpose of the law is to assure you don’t serve anyone who is underage,” the attorney explained to the bartender. “The ID might be expired, but that doesn’t mean his date of birth has changed. It’s not valid as a license to operate a vehicle, but for the purpose of identification, it’s just fine.”

The bartender wasn’t having it. He shooed me off the premises despite the attorney’s assurance he didn’t need to. Fortunately, back at home I had a current, valid passport, so in the time it took me to make the round-trip drive home, I was back at the pool table, with a beer in my hand. If I hadn’t possessed that passport, though, I’d have been stuck at home, thirsty and thoroughly miffed.

I’ve been thinking about that night a lot lately, in the context of age verification laws, not just within the United States, but especially here, because the U.S. is where I live – and because the protection of the First Amendment is something we like to believe sets us apart from much of the rest of the world.

We all know about countries that have fined adult websites for allegedly failing to comply with their age verification laws and about how these laws continue to proliferate around the country. What gets discussed a lot less are the people these laws leave behind – namely, adults who don’t possess identification.

I think a lot of people underestimate how many adults around the country and globe lack government-issued identification, not to mention lack empathy for people who find themselves in that predicament. Estimates vary greatly, but some researchers peg the number of American adults without government issued identification as high as 34.5 million. There are also many Americans with forms of identification that might be acceptable for some purposes, but not others, like Native American tribal IDs.

As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “age verification systems foster unequal access to information and provide an asymmetric solution to find essential information, build community, and weigh in on public discourse,” and as governments and companies “increasingly require users to prove their age before accessing online services, these individuals risk being excluded from large parts of the internet altogether.”

I’m sure many proponents of age verification laws won’t lose any sleep over the notion of adults being denied access to online porn, because for many of the legislators who advanced these bills, discouraging everyone from watching porn is the whole point, not merely a side benefit.

For those Americans among us who do care about little, trifling things like equality under the law, the right to access expression protected by the First Amendment and basic fairness, however, the de facto paywall created by age verification laws isn’t something we should dismiss as a minor issue. To the contrary, that paywall ought to be front and center among our objections to the laws which created it.

LUXEMBOURG — Luxembourg’s Independent Audiovisual Authority (ALIA) has fined the parent companies of LiveJasmin a combined €25,000 for failing to adequately enforce age verification requirements on the adult camming platform.

ALIA, the country’s national audiovisual regulator, determined that JWS Americas and JWS International failed to implement age restrictions in accordance with Luxembourg law. The companies operate LiveJasmin in Luxembourg and other European Union member states.

JWS and affiliated companies, including Byborg Enterprises, are owned by Docler Holding, which was founded by Hungarian billionaire György Gattyán. Docler is headquartered near the Grand Ducal golf club, outside Luxembourg City.

The latest penalty adds to a series of regulatory actions against the company that began in August 2025. The initial investigation followed ALIA’s mandate to enforce legislation that “requires video-sharing platforms (hereinafter ‘VSPs’) to implement appropriate measures to protect minors from content that may impair their physical, mental, or moral development, notably, through the implementation of user age verification systems.”

The fine concerns alleged violations of Luxembourg’s Electronic Media Law and the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Worth approximately $28,000 at current exchange rates, the penalty followed an investigation that found inconsistencies in the platform’s enforcement of age verification requirements for users connecting from Luxembourg and other EU member states.

According to ALIA, a parent submitted a complaint expressing “concern about the ‘level of unrestricted access available on the LiveJasmin website.'” “[The parent] states that [their] son was able to access content on the platforms without having an account or subscription, even though, in [their] view was ‘extremely inappropriate and deeply concerning,” the regulator disclosed in its ruling.

ALIA officials also alleged that LiveJasmin and its affiliated companies failed to cooperate with the investigation. Representatives of JWS maintained that the violations identified were isolated breaches of the platform’s content policies and argued that age verification measures had been standardized across EU member states.

The regulator, however, concluded that measures implemented in other member states did not satisfy Luxembourg’s requirements. Like other platforms operating across multiple jurisdictions, LiveJasmin applies different age verification measures depending on the region.

ALIA explained, “The providers (JWS) have not uniformly deployed age verification systems in all [EU] member states and continue to adopt a differentiated approach based on national legal frameworks. In Austria, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, the providers have not implemented any age-verification system.”

MÜNSTER, Germany — Aylo has secured another legal victory in Germany, with a court ruling that prevents North Rhine-Westphalia’s State Media Authority from enforcing orders requiring internet providers to block access to Pornhub and YouPorn while the underlying legal proceedings continue.

The Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, based in Münster, issued the decision in two preliminary injunction proceedings. In a statement, the court said, “The North Rhine-Westphalia State Media Authority is temporarily barred from ordering a major internet provider to block access to the pornographic websites ‘Pornhub’ and ‘YouPorn’ in Germany.”

“This was decided today by the Higher Administrative Court in two preliminary injunctions,” the court said. The ruling followed an appeal by the state media regulator, led by Tobias Schmid, after a lower court ordered a temporary suspension of the measures that would have resulted in a nationwide block on access to the two websites.

“In response to an appeal by the Cypriot platform operator, the Düsseldorf Administrative Court ruled in two preliminary injunction proceedings that the access provider is not required to block ‘Pornhub’ and ‘YouPorn’ for internet users in Germany until the conclusion of the main proceedings,” the court determined. “The appeals filed by the State Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia against this decision were unsuccessful at the Higher Administrative Court.”

On Nov. 19, 2025, the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf temporarily suspended regulations issued by North Rhine-Westphalia’s State Media Authority that required German internet service providers to block access to Aylo’s websites. The measures were intended to prevent users in Germany from accessing Pornhub and YouPorn.

In its November decision, the Düsseldorf court also found that Germany’s implementation of age verification requirements under the Youth Media Protection Interstate Treaty raised questions about compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The state regulator had relied on the interstate treaty to establish the requirements, contributing to conflicting court decisions over the legality of the restrictions. The relationship between German and EU law was central to the latest ruling.

“The blocking orders likely violate European Union law,” the court said. “While the pornographic websites’ offerings without age verification are not in accordance with the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media, the Cyprus-based platform operator cannot be accused of violating these German regulations.”

“National regulation is no longer possible,” the court added. “Insofar as the DSA provides a legal basis for blocking orders, the North Rhine-Westphalia State Media Authority lacks jurisdiction over such measures.”

“The decisions are final,” the court ruled. It also pointed to the EU regulatory framework governing large online platforms, under which Pornhub is designated a “very-large online platform” (VLOP) subject to heightened oversight under the DSA.

Aylo is continuing a separate legal challenge to its classification as a VLOP under the Digital Services Act. The company is seeking to overturn the designation, which subjects Pornhub to additional regulatory obligations and scrutiny related to digital safety.

The last time I thought about Pennsylvania in an adult industry context, the idea being batted around the state’s legislature was a proposal to levy a 10% tax on revenue generated by adult websites operating in the state.

This time around, Pennsylvania is considering something more in line with recent regulatory efforts by its fellow states: Requiring sites to verify the age of users, if those sites offer “a substantial portion of material that is harmful to minors.”

The bill, SB 603, defines “substantial portion” as “more than 33.3% of total material on the publicly accessible Internet website.” As such, I suppose the good news is if you run an adult site that currently offers 66.6% non-adult content, you could conceivably skirt the requirement by adding to your website a few thousand pictures of cats, or something.

Most likely, this bill is a legislative case of “follow the leader.” Dozens of states around the country have established age verification requirements for adult websites and the Supreme Court has given its constitutional stamp of approvalto such laws, so Pennsylvania certainly isn’t breaking any new ground here.

Still, part of me wonders if there isn’t another, less obvious inspiration for the new law. Perhaps, weary of constantly being confused with a product designed to lubricate the engines of motor vehicles, Pennsylvania is simply shooting for a new nickname.

Let’s face it, “The Keystone State” just never caught on. Poll a thousand Americans outside of Pennsylvania and I bet 667 of them wouldn’t even know that’s one of the state’s nicknames. And as for the “Quaker State,” well, today’s smaller, higher-revving engines… wait, sorry; that was Castrol, wasn’t it?

Anyway, regardless of which motor oil is best for small, high-revving engines, there’s no doubt the “Quaker State” branding is now more closely associated with motor oil than it is the state’s namesake – which isn’t BJ Penn, despite what my brain just thought would be funny to assert.

I know what you’re thinking: Why would the legislature pass a law mandating age verification to inspire a change in nicknames when they could just issue a resolution adopting a new nickname? Put bluntly, nicknaming yourself is just lame. Try that shit in your average fraternal organization and instead of being called “Razor” as you’d asked, your bros are liable to opt for something a bit less prosaic, like “Gilette” or “Sandy Crotch” or “Pathetic Douche Nozzle.”

And of course, the last thing Pennsylvania should do is open their state nickname rebranding campaign to suggestions from general internet users. That’s nothing but a recipe for ending up being called “Statey McStateface.”

Proceeding on the assumption this bill is being considered at least in part as a reputation and nickname reset, here are some things for the Pennsylvania legislature to consider:

• “The Age-Gate State” has a nice rhyme scheme and cadence to it, I think.
• “The Share Your Personally Identifying Information with Mysterious Third-Parties State” has the benefit of being highly accurate, but it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
• “The Abscam State” would encourage a generation of young Pennsylvanians to learn a bit of political history about the state, but might face blowback from other states that are proud of their role in that story (especially New Jersey).
• I think we can rule out “The Kids for Cash State,” in part because the optics of that phrase just aren’t great.

I don’t think I’m alone here in thinking the first possibility on the list above is the one likely to get the most traction. That said, they’re all more interesting than “The Keystone State” and significantly less oily than “The Quaker State.”

Of course, none of this will matter if the state doesn’t pass SB 603. At that point, the legislature may well have no choice but to go down the route of re-nicknaming itself by legislative decree – unless, of course, they like the sound of Statey McStateface.

I went to a concert the other night and while I wasn’t thrilled to find myself paying $20 for a “large” beer sized somewhere between a reasonable drinking glass and a typical Dixie Cup, I was thrilled when the cashier asked me to produce my ID before selling me the beer.

For a 56-year-old man who sports a rather full, very white beard, it doesn’t get much better than being carded by a twenty or thirty-something (or even a forty-something) cashier, because it suggests the cashier believes you might be younger than they are.

Granted, the lighting inside the arena was dimmed for the performance and the strobing lights from the stage were all the cashiers had to work with, but it still gave me a momentary jolt of belief: Maybe I still look closer to the cradle than the grave, if you will.

Other nice things about this incident of IRL age verification included:

• When I returned to the counter later for another overpriced beer, the same cashier didn’t card me a second time
• The cashier didn’t make a copy of my ID, including sensitive personally identifiable information, to be stored indefinitely on a server somewhere
• I wasn’t issued a “Beer PIN” or “Secure Adult Beverage Password” to forget in between trips to the concession stand
• Neither the national, state nor local government seemed to give a shit whether I was there having a beer that night

I find myself contrasting this experience – which took place in the context of a physical space where old farts like myself were mixed in with minors (mostly accompanied by their parents, but not legally obliged to be), as alcohol was sold from behind the same counter as the popcorn – with the one many elected officials want you to have when consuming adult content on the internet.

For example, in the UK, apparently even if you are using an age verification method offered by a major manufacturer of digital devices like Apple, that might not be good enough to satisfy the government.

The folks from Ofcom, the UK’s regulatory body responsible for administering the country’s Online Safety Act, say they “expect tech firms to ensure age checks are highly effective before introducing them.”

Honestly, that seems reasonable enough an expectation. But are we allowed to have the same opinion concerning government regulations? Is it unreasonable to expect our legislators to demonstrate the laws they pass will be effective before those regulations get scrawled into enforceable form?

And therein lies the rub. Absent an ID check that is even more obtrusive than those required under UK law (or U.S. law, for that matter), age verification remains an uncertain proposition.

As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “most platforms offer age estimation options like face scans as a first line of age assurance.” While these options “vary in intrusiveness… their main problem is inaccuracy, particularly for marginalized users.” (Emphasis added)

Thus far, age verification mandates established by state and national governments have included a fair degree of wiggle room to those implementing age verification schemes. So long as you rely on a commercially available method that conforms to what the law requires, you’re likely in compliance with the law.

If, on the other hand, you are an adult user who gets denied access because one of these methods decides you’re a minor… oh well. Sucks to be you, I guess?

Here’s my concern: what happens the first time there’s a high-profile case involving a minor who circumvents age verification technology in some way to access restricted materials online? When that minors’ parents raise a stink, will the legislature behind the law in their jurisdiction shrug and say “Well, a few kids are bound to slip through the cracks,” or will there be a push to tighten the law and require substantially more intrusive age verification methods?

I have little confidence that our elected officials will err to the site of liberty on this one. Before you know it, we might be scanning our retinas and thumbprints simply for the privilege of accessing online smut.

Here’s hoping those scans don’t cost $20 a pop – or if they do, they at least come with a reasonably large beer.