The War on Porn

NEW YORK — New York City has filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing Facebook, Google, Snapchat, TikTok, and other major online platforms of contributing to a youth mental health crisis by making their products addictive to children.

The 327-page complaint, filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court, seeks damages from Meta Platforms, owner of Facebook and Instagram; Alphabet, owner of Google and YouTube; Snap Inc., which operates Snapchat; and ByteDance, parent company of TikTok. The city accuses the companies of gross negligence and creating a public nuisance.

The lawsuit aligns New York City with a growing wave of state and local governments, school districts, and individuals involved in roughly 2,050 similar cases consolidated in federal court in Oakland, California. With a population of 8.48 million residents, including 1.8 million minors, New York City is among the largest plaintiffs in the national litigation. The city’s school system and healthcare agencies are also listed as plaintiffs.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda pushed back on the claims, saying that allegations involving YouTube are “simply not true,” noting that “it is a streaming service and not a social network where people catch up with friends.”

The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for New York City’s law department said the city withdrew from a separate lawsuit announced by Mayor Eric Adams in February 2024 in California state court so it could instead join the consolidated federal case.

Platforms Accused of Exploiting Youth Behavior

The complaint alleges that the defendants “designed their platforms to exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of youth” to encourage compulsive use and maximize profits.

It cites data showing that 77.3% of New York City high school students — and 82.1% of girls — report spending three or more hours daily on screens, including phones, computers, and televisions. The city claims such heavy use has led to lost sleep, chronic school absences, and worsening mental health.

In January 2024, the city’s health commissioner declared social media a public health hazard, noting that the city and its schools have been forced to spend increasing taxpayer funds to address the mounting youth mental health crisis.

Link to Dangerous Trends

The complaint also ties social media use to a surge in “subway surfing” — the dangerous trend of riding on top of or clinging to the sides of moving subway cars. Since 2023, at least 16 people have died while subway surfing, including two girls aged 12 and 13 this month, according to police data.

“Defendants should be held to account for the harms their conduct has inflicted,” the city said in the filing. “As it stands now, (the) plaintiffs are left to abate the nuisance and foot the bill.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has issued formal warnings to 19 pornography websites, alleging they are violating the state’s new age-verification law and could soon face legal action if they do not comply.

“This duly enacted law protects young, impressionable children from the harms of adult-only material found online,” Yost said in an Oct. 8 news release. “It’s time for these companies to explain why they think they’re above the law.”

The recently enacted Ohio law requires any organization that sells or presents materials or performances deemed “obscene or harmful to juveniles” to verify users’ ages using photo identification or other official records, such as mortgage or employment data. Companies that fail to meet these standards risk being sued by the state.

Pornhub, one of the sites named, argues that the legislation doesn’t apply to its operations due to an exemption for web hosting platforms. However, according to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, a review of 20 adult sites determined that all but one failed to comply with the new verification requirements.

Yost’s office sent violation notices to the noncompliant companies, warning them that they could face lawsuits if corrective measures are not taken within 45 days.

“Intentional noncompliance places minors at risk,” the letters stated. “We urge you to take immediate corrective action.”

Michael McGrady opines on faith based porn panics:

What happens when a small faction of politicians attempts to impose their faith-driven vision of “American values” at the expense of free speech, queer visibility, and secular governance? The growing wave of anti-pornography proposals—ranging from full bans on adult content to invasive age-verification laws—illustrates how far the far-right is willing to transform moral panic into legislation, regardless of constitutional limits or practical absurdity.

One striking example comes from Michigan state representative Josh Schriver, a Republican known for racist, homophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric. In September 2025, Schriver went viral after introducing a proposal to completely outlaw online pornography in Michigan’s digital sphere. Even many conservatives expressed skepticism, acknowledging the proposal’s blatant overreach into free speech protections.

Schriver’s bill, House Bill 4938—formally titled the “Anti-Corruption of Public Morals Act”—would impose sweeping criminal penalties and steep fines for distributing or possessing what it vaguely defines as “prohibited material.”

A History of Gendered Censorship and the Costs of Faith-Based ‘Porn’ Panics - TheHumanist.com

Bigotry rebranded as moral purity.

Read More

thehumanist.com

Adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein talks about North Carolina’s HB 805 and how it impacts our business.

Breaking Down HB 805 and How it Affects the Adult Industry

North Carolina House Bill 805 was enacted July 29, after the state legislature overrode Governor Josh Stein’s veto. The provisions that relate to the adult industry, imposing requirements for age verification, consent and content removal, are scheduled to become effective Dec. 1. Platforms have until then to update their policies and systems to comply with the new regulations.

Read More

www.xbiz.com

KYIV — Ukraine’s State Tax Service has announced that local content creators collectively owe the equivalent of $9.3 million in unpaid taxes, primarily tied to income earned through the subscription platform OnlyFans between 2020 and 2022.

According to a report from the Ukrainian outlet Economic Truth, the tax debt amounts to 384.7 million hryvnia and stems from revenue generated by Ukrainian residents from the London-based company Fenix International Ltd., which operates OnlyFans.

“The total amount of tax debt that arose for individual residents of Ukraine due to nonpayment of taxes on income received from Fenix International Ltd. (the company that owns the OnlyFans platform) during 2020–2022 is UAH 384.7 million,” the report states.

Economic Truth also noted that the OnlyFans platform “is used primarily for posting and monetizing pornographic content,” and emphasized that the production or distribution of pornography remains a criminal offense in Ukraine.

“According to Article 301 of the Criminal Code, liability for such activity can reach up to seven years in prison,” the publication added.

In July, Ukrainian officials faced renewed debate over the issue after President Volodymyr Zelensky responded to a petition from OnlyFans users urging support for draft law No. 12191, titled “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Improve Certain Provisions on Criminal Offenses Against Public Order and Morality.”

Zelensky did not publicly take a stance on decriminalization but noted that the proposal was currently under review by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament.

He explained that his involvement “will only come into play should the Verkhovna Rada adopt the law.”

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — The European Patent Office’s Board of Appeals has revoked a patent held by EIS GmbH, ruling that it infringed on intellectual property owned by pleasure product manufacturer Lelo. EIS, the parent company behind the Satisfyer brand, has been engaged in a prolonged legal dispute with Lelo over ownership of patents covering air pulse technology.

The overturned patent, EP3228297, titled “Pressure Waves Massage Apparatus,” was designed to protect the technology used in Satisfyer’s range of air pulse vibrators and similar products. The Board’s decision effectively halts EIS’s ability to pursue legal action against wholesalers and retailers selling competing pressure wave devices on claims of patent infringement.

The ruling follows a series of lawsuits in which EIS had targeted retailers offering Lelo’s Sona, Sila, and Enigmaproducts, alleging they violated Satisfyer’s patent rights.

“This decision confirms what Lelo believed all along: its innovative designs and technologies are distinct and original, upholding the brand’s reputation for pioneering excellence in the intimate wellness industry,” Lelo said in a statement.

The decision is final and non-appealable, and applies to all member states of the European Patent Convention, which governs patent protections across much of Europe.

Member countries include Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Monaco, North Macedonia, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, San Marino, and Türkiye.

LOS ANGELES—Collective Shout, an Australian anti-pornography group, announced Thursday that it successfully pressured Honey Birdette, the Playboy-owned lingerie retailer, to withdraw certain advertising from a shopping mall near Perth.

The group described the outcome as a “flash win” in its campaign against what it called “porn-themed” marketing.

Collective Shout, co-founded by self-described “pro-life feminist” Melinda Tankard Reist, positions itself as a prominent anti-pornography organization in Australia and has often compared its efforts to similar conservative-led advocacy groups in the United States.

Honey Birdette has been in Collective Shout’s crosshairs for years. In August 2025, the group objected to the retailer’s advertising of lingerie products featuring BDSM-inspired accessories such as chains, collars, and leashes. The complaint was filed with Australia’s advertising industry regulatory body, Ad Standards, which later closed the matter after Honey Birdette addressed the concerns. Similar cases have been raised by Collective Shout against the brand multiple times in the past.

“Playboy-owned sex shop Honey Birdette has been forced to remove two porn-style shop window ads following our reports to Ad Standards,” the blog post declared. “The ads promoting a range called ‘Sumi – Leopard’ featured objectifying portrayals of naked women.”

The complaint targeted ads promoting Honey Birdette’s Sumi collection, which the company describes as “inspired by sheer bodysuits and bodystockings.” The line includes lingerie sets, catsuits, headpieces, and other items in black and leopard print designs.

Collective Shout said the ads objectified women and were inappropriate for children visiting the Perth shopping mall. The group emphasized that the ads were displayed in close proximity to a children’s stage show, describing the venue as a “family shopping center.”

While the group highlighted this proximity in its complaint, it did not provide exact measurements of the distance between the advertisements and the stage show. Still, Ad Standards acted quickly after receiving the reports.

“Less than 24 hours after lodging our reports, Ad Standards replied with a notice advising that Honey Birdette had confirmed the ads had been ‘modified or removed and the original advertisement will not be used again on this medium,’” Collective Shout wrote in its post.

Following the removal, the group is now urging its supporters to continue the campaign by filing additional complaints with Ad Standards and petitioning executives of the shopping center’s parent company to suspend Honey Birdette’s marketing campaigns across all of their properties in Australia.

Honey Birdette, founded in 2006 in Australia, was acquired in 2021 by the NASDAQ-listed PLBY Group, parent company of Playboy and other brands, as part of a strategy to expand its global retail footprint and e-commerce operations. The lingerie chain operates stores across Australia as well as in the United States and other international markets.

RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Wednesday signed into law new rules governing the use of social media, online video games and other digital services by children and adolescents.

Known as the “Adultization Bill” — shorthand in Brazil for its goal of protecting minors from premature exposure to adult content — or “Digital ECA,” for updating a 1990 statute that guarantees fundamental rights for children and adolescents, the law will take effect in 180 days.

In his speech, Lula said the measure represents a step toward Brazil’s digital sovereignty and emphasized that foreign companies are welcome as long as they comply with national laws. He criticized Big Tech’s lack of self-regulation, defended stronger protections for children and announced a provisional decree elevating the National Data Protection Authority into an autonomous agency.

“Freedom of expression is a nonnegotiable value, but it cannot serve as an excuse for committing crimes in the digital world,” Lula said.

The law obliges digital platforms to adopt safeguards, limits the collection of data from minors and sets tough penalties for violations. Companies are required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent children and adolescents from being exposed to illegal or inappropriate content, including sexual exploitation, harassment, violence, self-harm, gambling, deceptive advertising and other predatory practices.

Parental controls must be provided and set by default to the highest protection level, including time limits, blocking geolocation, restricting unauthorized adult contacts and controlling content recommendations.

Age verification is now mandatory. Until now, most platforms relied on self-declaration, with users merely confirming they were over 18. The new law bans that practice and requires stronger mechanisms, still to be defined by regulators, to prevent minors from accessing harmful content.

In addition, accounts of users under 16 must be linked to responsible adults, who will receive reports and be able to restrict interactions.

Noncompliance may result in fines of up to 10% of a company’s Brazilian revenue, capped at $10 million per violation, according to Stephanie Almeida, a lawyer at São Paulo-based Poliszezuk Advogados specializing in civil and corporate law.

Luiza Teixeira, a child protection specialist at UNICEF Brazil, described the law as “very robust, with high technical quality.” She acknowledged that digital technologies provide opportunities for learning, expression and connection but warned of serious risks as well.

According to João Victor Archegas, a lawyer and researcher at the Institute for Technology and Society in Rio de Janeiro, the new legislation is more specific than earlier frameworks such as the Statute of Children and Adolescents, the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights and the General Data Protection Law.

“These are important legal frameworks in the country, because they address protection of fundamental rights online and of minors,” he said. “But there was still a lack of specific normative language on the use of social media and digital platforms by this audience.”

The bill was introduced in 2022 but gained momentum in August 2025 after influencer Felipe Bressanim Pereira, known as Felca, published a viral video exposing cases of child exploitation online. Public debate intensified following the arrest of influencer Hytalo Santos on Aug. 15, accused of producing and sharing sexual content involving minors.

Data from SaferNet Brasil, which monitors human rights violations online, highlights the scale of the problem. Between Jan. 1 and July 31, 2025, it recorded 76,997 reports, with 49,336 (64%) related to child sexual abuse and exploitation. After Felca’s video went viral, reports of child pornography more than doubled.

Teixeira warned that generative artificial intelligence has amplified risks by enabling the manipulation of harmless images of children into sexualized material that circulates openly on pedophile networks. “Contrary to common belief, it is not just on the dark web,” she said.

After the public outcry, the lower house approved the bill on Aug. 21 with minor amendments, and the Senate quickly confirmed it before sending it to the president. During debate, some lawmakers cautioned about potential overreach in internet regulation.

“The bill was seen by some as a ‘thermometer’ for broader regulation of Big Tech in Brazil,” Almeida said. “Opponents argue that the text, in its current form, could open precedents for restricting freedom of expression, while supporters stress that the proposal actually seeks to restore parents’ power to oversee their children’s digital lives.”

Ariel de Castro Alves, one of Brazil’s leading child rights experts, stressed that the law is only a first step. “The internet cannot be a lawless land,” he said.

Alves explained that companies will need systems for removing harmful content, technical teams dedicated to child safety, effective reporting channels, and investments in protective measures. They “can no longer simply profit from views, engagement and boosted content” that violate children’s rights.

He added that Brazil should also adopt a content rating system similar to that used for television and include safe internet education in school curricula.

Teixeira noted that the law “put Brazil on equal footing with other countries that already had a robust legal and political framework for protecting children and adolescents online, such as England,” but warned that the main challenge will be “to regulate and put it into practice.”

Archegas highlighted three key difficulties: developing effective age verification without creating digital exclusion or excessive surveillance, managing the economic burden of adapting global platforms to Brazil’s requirements, and ensuring enforcement so that the rules are more than symbolic.

Strike 3 Holdings, a company that describes its films as “high quality,” “feminist,” and “ethical” adult videos, has filed a lawsuit against Meta in federal court in California, accusing the tech giant of infringing its copyrights by using Strike 3’s content to train artificial intelligence models. The complaint, filed in July, claims Meta has been torrenting and seeding the company’s videos since 2018. Supporting exhibits and details were unsealed last week.

According to the lawsuit, Meta sought Strike 3’s content because it offered angles and extended uninterrupted scenes that are “rare in mainstream movies and TV,” allegedly giving Meta an edge in developing what CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls AI “superintelligence.”

“They have an interest in getting our content because it can give them a competitive advantage for the quality, fluidity, and humanity of the AI,” said Christian Waugh, an attorney for Strike 3.

The filing alleges Meta BitTorrented and distributed 2,396 of Strike 3’s copyrighted videos, making them accessible to minors since the BitTorrent protocol does not include age verification. The complaint further asserts that Meta used the adult videos “for distribution as currency to support its downloading of a vast array of other content necessary to train its AI models.”

The exhibits list not only Strike 3 titles but also mainstream television shows such as Yellowstone, Modern Family, The Bachelor, South Park, and Downton Abbey. They also include pornographic videos produced by others that appear to feature very young actors, with titles such as ExploitedTeens, Anal Teens, and EuroTeenErotica. In addition, the list contains files related to weapons (3D Gun Print, Gun Digest Shooter’s Guide to the AR-15) and political material (Antifa’s Radical Plan and Intellectual Property Rights in Cyberspace).

Using adult content as training data is “a public relations disaster waiting to happen,” said Matthew Sag, a professor of law specializing in artificial intelligence at Emory University. “Imagine a middle school student asks a Meta AI model for a video about pizza delivery, and before you know it, it’s porn.”

Strike 3 says it identified the alleged violations through infringement-detection systems it operates and traced activity to 47 Meta-affiliated IP addresses. The company is seeking $350 million in statutory damages.

Christopher Sgro, a Meta spokesperson, said: “We’re reviewing the complaint, but we don’t believe Strike’s claims are accurate.”

The lawsuit draws attention to Meta’s V-JEPA 2 “world model,” released in June, which the company says was trained on 1 million hours of “internet video,” a term the complaint highlights as vague. Zuckerberg has described Meta’s goal as putting “the power of superintelligence into people’s hands to direct it toward what they value in their own lives.”

According to the complaint, Meta executives deliberately approved the use of pirated material, with Zuckerberg’s sign-off. Nearly every major AI company faces similar copyright suits.

“The case being presented against Meta is perhaps the case of the century because of the sheer scope of infringement,” Waugh said, adding that the unsealed exhibits represent only “a thin slice of the pie.”

AI companies often defend themselves by claiming that their technologies are “transformative” and thus protected under fair use. Former President Donald Trump voiced support for this view in July, saying: “You can’t be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book, or anything else that you’ve read or studied you’re supposed to pay for.”

In June, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Meta did not break the law in training its AI models on the works of 13 authors in a separate case, Kadrey v. Meta. However, he clarified that the decision “stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”

That leaves the door open for Strike 3 to mount a stronger case. “The best version of their argument is: This is a fundamental problem because, by going to these pirate websites, you are undermining the market for access,” Sag explained.

Waugh argued that the dispute underscores a broader issue. “It doesn’t matter if it’s a four-sentence poem or adult entertainment. There is no appetite in this country for what AI companies appear to be doing, which is making money off the backs of rights holders who never gave permission for it.”

Three Ofcom regulators with clipboards spent the weekend walking the exhibition floor of an international adult industry conference in Prague, urging the 1,700 delegates to comply with the UK’s new Online Safety Act.

“Don’t lie to us,” one of the regulators told a room full of pornography site owners and employees during a lunchtime presentation on the law’s age verification requirements, introduced in July to stop children from viewing explicit content. “Be honest and open. If your measures are not good enough yet, put that on your risk assessment.”

Delegates, some drinking champagne provided by conference sponsors, pressed the regulators with questions. What if a company couldn’t afford to install age verification? How big would the fines be? Could sites avoid compliance by blocking UK traffic? And what if competitors tipped off the regulator in an attempt to sabotage rival businesses?

“We exist to help you,” another Ofcom regulator assured an audience of about 50 men and seven women. “It’s hard. There are many, many things you need to know, but we exist to help members of the adult industry with compliance.”

Seven weeks after the introduction of the Online Safety Act, Ofcom officials said they wanted to emphasize positive progress. According to the regulators, all of the top 10 and most of the top 100 adult sites had either implemented age checks or blocked UK access. Social media sites that allow explicit content, such as X and Reddit, have also deployed age assurance. In August, there were 7.5 million visits to the top five age-verification providers, up from 1 million in June.

Officials described 27 July, the day the law came into effect, as “AV Day”—a moment they hoped would decisively shut off children’s access to online pornography. But the rollout has faced complications.

In the days immediately after implementation, downloads of VPNs surged as users sought to bypass geographic restrictions and age checks.

“The rollout has been fairly disastrous,” said Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition in the U.S. “VPNs have surged; people have not been compliant; we’re seeing traffic go to pirate sites … I don’t think Ofcom would look at this and say: ‘This is what we wanted.’”

American lawyer Corey Silverstein, who has challenged similar age-verification laws in several U.S. states, said there was hostility among delegates. “People are very professional and very polite, but this isn’t the friendliest audience. Some people steer very clear of them. You can see it must be uncomfortable for them walking into a trade show like this.”

Still, Silverstein advised adult site owners to work with regulators. “Their goal is not to cut your legs off. They smile and they’re very nice. They’re not trying to kill you,” he said. “My understanding is they’re actually not even looking to financially fine you. They just want to push you in the right direction for compliance.”

At the conference, regulators in white shirts handed out paper questionnaires to delegates as steel drums played and dancers in feathered leotards entertained the crowd. The anonymous forms asked whether companies had adopted age verification and, if not, why they had done nothing. By Saturday evening, one official admitted few delegates had filled them out but expressed hope for more participation the next day.

So far, no company has been fined under the Online Safety Act, but Ofcom has opened 12 investigations covering more than 60 pornographic sites and apps.

This has caused unease among site operators, many of whom are already contending with new regulations in the U.S. and France. Still, some acknowledged the value of Ofcom’s outreach.

“In the U.S., people really don’t want to talk to us,” said Alex Kekesi, Pornhub’s vice president of brand and community. “We appreciate that Ofcom has invited us to have a seat at the table. We’re often not included in conversations that have to do with regulating our industry.”

Ahead of the law’s introduction, Ofcom created a Porn Portfolio team of six compliance officers to encourage adherence. Members of the team, who requested anonymity for safeguarding reasons, have attended similar conferences in Berlin, Amsterdam, and Los Angeles. A separate enforcement team of more than 40 staff investigates violations.

“We are very conscious of the size of the sector and the ease with which anybody can set up a service that shares pornographic content,” one official said. “We’re not saying that we are going to manage to get every single service into compliance. The approach we take is targeting our resources on those areas where the most children are at most risk of harm.”

Penalties, when imposed, will be significant. Sites could face fines up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue.

“Companies can choose to not comply and take the risk that we will come after them and find them. We want enforcement to change that balance of incentives, so they think it’s just not worth taking the risk,” another regulator explained.

Officials also pushed back on the idea that VPN use means the law has failed, stressing that the main goal is to stop children from accidentally stumbling across pornography rather than blocking determined adults.

Beyond age verification, site operators are also wrestling with AI-generated pornographic content. Regulators warned companies to prevent the creation of violent or illegal imagery that could result in action by Ofcom or payment processors like Visa and Mastercard.

“From a compliance perspective, how can you tell the difference between a 15-year-old AI model and an 18- or 19-year-old AI model?” one delegate asked, concerned about preventing users from producing child sexual abuse material.

Steve Jones, who operates an AI porn site, explained how his team manages the issue. “We say your creation has to be at least 5ft tall, can’t be completely flat-chested and we ban things like pigtails and braces and all the childish toys and teddy bears and things like that,” he said. “AI doesn’t understand the difference between an adult woman that looks young and a young girl. We have to teach it. The AI itself has no morals and no ethics.”