Business Attacks

Controversial adult film actress Cherie DeVille has entered into a public spat with Bank of America over the closure of her personal and business accounts. According to the actor, this act of closing her account is politically motivated and is against a federal executive order designed to prevent such actions.

The Video That Sparked the Conflict

The conflict started last week when DeVille put up a video on Instagram detailing her experience.

“So Bank of America has just fired me as a customer,” she claimed. “I know that is crazy because after literally years of banking with them, they closed all of my accounts, my personal accounts, uh, my business accounts, not because I committed fraud or did something illegal, not because I owe them money, but because I’m an adult content creator. That’s it. That’s the entire reason.”

DeVille explained that the industry should not be taken into consideration, as she works legally.

“Whether you personally approve of my job or not is kind of beside the point because at the end of the day, I work in a completely legal business,” she argued. “I pay my taxes, I have employees, I run a company, and I, like all legal businesses, deserve access to banking just like any other law-abiding American.

She called this act “debanking” and pointed to the fact that such kind of behavior is quite common for those working in the legal but controversial industries. She also reminded that there was an executive order signed by President Trump in this regard, although this order did not mention her particular field of work.

“It simply says, if you’re operating a legal business and following the law, you shouldn’t lose access to banking just because somebody doesn’t like what you do, doesn’t agree with your line of legal work,” she said.

According to DeVille, she managed to find another bank, but not everyone could have this opportunity.

“Thankfully, I have already been able to find another bank, and that’s great for me, but not everybody has that privilege,” she explained. “So let me know in the comments if this has happened to you or somebody you know, and if you think that banks should continue to get away with this, just ripping people’s accounts away for no reason other than they don’t like your job.”

Bank of America Statement

After the video went viral, a Bank of America spokesperson said that DeVille’s profession had nothing to do with the closure of her accounts.

“We are subject to federal regulations that require us to monitor account activity. In this case, the account was closed based on recent transactional activity and not because of any industry or profession.”

DeVille Wasn’t Done Yet

This response did not satisfy DeVille, and she published a screenshot on X of the message that Bank of America allegedly sent her. The message stated the following:

“We have carefully reviewed your concerns, and we wanted you to know that we are subject to federal regulations that require us to monitor account activity. In this case, the accounts were closed based on recent transactional activity. We’ve also sent a letter to your email and your mailing address on file.”

DeVille denied this reasoning.

“This is the BS that @bankofamerica sent me. They’re lying. I have never done anything illegal. I have never done a single illegal transaction,” DeVille wrote. “They targeted me for political reasons despite @realdonaldtrump executive order banning debanking.”

In another post, DeVille admitted that her PR team asked her to tone down her actions.

“My mainstream PR just called, asking me to compromise. (Can’t get into details, but I suspect he spoke to people in power.) I love my PR guy, but BOA debanked hundreds of legal adult content creators I know,” she tweeted. “I won’t back down till BOA follows Trump’s executive order. THIS IS WAR!”

She also posted another message to the bank on X.

“The idiots at @BankofAmerica think I’m a dumb hoe,” DeVille tweeted. “Unfortunately I’m an articulate, wealthy p*rn star who chooses to hire multiple mainstream PR consultants. I will speak out against BOA till they follow Trump’s executive order. I will have more surprises for BOA soon. #WAR”

Bank of America responded to Cherie DeVille’s tweets, stating that her profession had nothing to do with the closure of her accounts.

Read More »

WASHINGTON — A familiar accusation in American politics has landed back in the spotlight, this time with subpoenas attached.

Former Fox News anchor and federal prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, now serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, issued broad subpoenas this week to several major financial institutions as part of an investigation into whether customers were unlawfully denied banking services because of their political beliefs, ideological affiliations or professions.

The inquiries center on allegations that banks discriminated against people because they identified as politically conservative or were connected to organizations such as conservative Christian groups or activities that some civil society organizations have classified as right-wing extremism.

According to multiple reports, institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo received subpoenas. Pirro and federal prosecutors are reportedly exploring potential sanctions and charges under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, a law that gained prominence during efforts to hold banks accountable following the 2008 mortgage crisis.

Given the legal approach being taken, the investigation is drawing attention within the adult industry, where concerns about debanking and unequal access to financial services have persisted for years. For many in that space, the issue isn’t theoretical. It’s part of doing business.

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade organization representing the adult industry, has spent years urging Congress and federal officials to adopt fairer banking policies, particularly for people engaged in legal, consensual sex work or occupations connected to the adult sector. The group has also highlighted areas of overlap with conservative activists who have raised similar complaints involving firearm retailers, check-cashing businesses, pawn shops, religious organizations and other industries they say have faced restrictions from financial institutions.

The coalition is also pursuing plans to establish a federally chartered credit union dedicated to serving the adult industry. The goal is to provide an alternative to major banks and reduce the effects of debanking. The broader issue remains contentious and heavily debated. Still, investigations conducted by news organizations and advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have prompted calls for reforms from federal regulators and self-regulatory bodies overseeing banking and payment processing.

It is important to note that Pirro’s subpoenas could only be issued on behalf of preferred groups and individuals.

The New York Post cited allegations connected to a lawsuit brought by President Donald J. Trump against JPMorgan Chase. According to those claims, a former bank executive informed Trump and members of his family that certain accounts would be closed following the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Pirro has also been outspoken in her criticism of what she characterizes as institutional bias against conservatives and right-wing figures within the financial sector.

Even so, federal law requires banks to provide equitable access to financial products and services. Previous reporting noted that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which operates within the Treasury Department, found that nine of the nation’s largest banks had limited services to some clients operating in industries considered controversial.

Early in his administration, President Trump signed an executive order directing the OCC to examine allegations of debanking. Preliminary findings from that review indicated that institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank had engaged in debanking practices.

Read More »

Money doesn’t just talk anymore. Increasingly, it decides who gets heard at all.

Banks are combing through adult websites searching for flagged words, questionable scenes, and content they think might create legal exposure. Payment processors are making judgment calls about alleged misinformation tied to wars and politics. In some cases, even a donation to a cannabis advocacy organization can trigger scrutiny. Quietly, steadily, financial institutions have become gatekeepers in places most people probably never imagined.

Rainey Reitman saw an early version of this more than a decade ago while helping support imprisoned whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The fundraising campaign she worked on operated through an organization called Courage to Resist. Then, in 2011, its PayPal account was suddenly frozen. Reitman and the group’s leadership struggled to get a straight answer beyond vague references to the PATRIOT Act. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue with PayPal representatives went nowhere. Public attention, however, changed things fast.

“When PayPal reversed their decision so quickly in response to the publicity surrounding our press release, it was clear to me….We really had done nothing wrong,” Reitman writes in Transaction Denied: Big Finance’s Power to Punish Speech. “If there had been any legal requirement for PayPal to suspend our account, they wouldn’t have changed their mind just because people were tweeting at them.”

That experience pushed Reitman deeper into what she now describes as “financial censorship.” In her book, the term refers to banks, credit card companies, and payment processors restricting or shutting down accounts belonging to “controversial or marginalized speakers who haven’t violated any laws,” effectively turning financial systems into “a tool to pressure dissenting and marginalized voices” into silence.

What Is Financial Censorship?

“It is a form of privatized censorship where banks and payment intermediaries act as censors in ways the government couldn’t do directly without violating the First Amendment,” writes Reitman, a longtime civil liberties advocate and co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

And no, Reitman isn’t especially interested in debates over whether “censorship” technically applies only to governments. “I think that’s a pedantic and unhelpful distinction,” she writes.

Transaction Denied traces how financial censorship — sometimes called “financial exclusion” or “debanking” — has affected people and organizations over the last 15 years. Protesters, journalists, gun-rights activists, adult creators, Muslim business owners, cannabis advocates, erotica writers, religious liberty groups, and even naked yoga instructors all appear in its pages. Strange mix, honestly. But that’s partly the point.

Legally speaking, banks and payment processors generally have broad discretion over who they do business with, provided they are not discriminating against protected groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sex. A financial institution can usually close an account for almost any other reason, whether it’s reputational concerns, moral objections, or simple risk avoidance.

Reitman acknowledges that reality while also arguing the system may need reform. “People today cannot survive on wads of cash stuffed under a mattress; they need access to payment and banking services to exist in society,” she writes. Among her proposals are laws preventing financial institutions from denying services based on constitutionally protected speech, stronger enforcement of antidiscrimination protections, and greater transparency around account closures and appeals.

Still, even without embracing all of Reitman’s proposals, the broader concerns she raises are difficult to ignore. Financial exclusion, she argues, often overlaps with more traditional forms of speech suppression in ways that are increasingly hard to separate.

Government ‘Censorship by Proxy’

Reitman argues that financial companies are not always acting independently when accounts are closed over controversial speech or politically sensitive activity. In many cases, she says, institutions are responding to direct or indirect government pressure.

Sometimes that pressure is explicit, as in disputes involving the National Rifle Association, Backpage, and WikiLeaks.

In Illinois, former sheriff Tom Dart sent letters to credit card companies urging them to “cease and desist from allowing your credit cards to be used to place ads” on Backpage, a classified advertising platform widely associated with sex-work listings. In New York, financial regulators under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo warned banks that maintaining ties to the NRA could pose “reputational risk,” language financial institutions often interpret as a warning sign for increased regulatory scrutiny. Following the publication of leaked State Department cables by WikiLeaks, then-Sen. Joe Lieberman publicly accused the organization of criminal conduct and suggested companies maintaining relationships with the group risked aiding illegal activity.

Other times, the pressure is less direct. Reitman points to efforts like Operation Choke Point, as well as regulatory systems used by agencies such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, where vague assessments of “reputational risk” can influence how banks handle customers. Financial institutions, eager to avoid regulatory headaches, often respond by adopting aggressive risk-management systems.

“Often in cases of financial censorship, there’s a whiff of government involvement but it’s hard to prove,” Reitman notes.

In other instances, the issue stems from compliance systems tied to anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws. “Know your customer” requirements, which force banks to verify customer identities and monitor transactions, expanded significantly after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Reitman argues that these systems frequently sweep up lawful customers who have done nothing illegal.

Economic sanctions create another layer of pressure. Financial institutions are expected to help enforce sanctions programs, and the penalties for mistakes can be severe. As a result, many institutions adopt broad enforcement policies to avoid scrutiny.

That environment contributed to a bizarre but revealing situation involving New York City Councilwoman Shahana Hanif. A $14 Venmo payment she sent to reimburse a friend for lunch at a Bronx Bangladeshi restaurant called Al Aqsa was reportedly blocked after the restaurant’s name triggered automated systems tied to sanctions enforcement. While “Al Aqsa” is a common Arabic term used by many businesses, an unrelated organization with a similar name appears on U.S. sanctions lists.

For many Americans — particularly Muslim communities and people connected to certain foreign regions — such incidents can create recurring financial obstacles, even when no wrongdoing exists.

Culture and Courts Encourage Financial Censorship

Government pressure may play a significant role, but Reitman argues cultural and political activism have also shaped the current environment.

Activists across the political spectrum increasingly pressure financial institutions and digital intermediaries to sever ties with people or organizations viewed as objectionable. Over time, providing neutral services has become framed less as infrastructure and more as implicit endorsement.

That shift, critics argue, creates a dangerous precedent.

“Just because it might make you happy today to see a person that you don’t agree with losing access to their money and suffering, that doesn’t mean that that same mechanism might not be turned against you down the road,” Lia Holland of Fight for the Future told Reitman.

The legal consequences of this evolving mindset are already surfacing in court.

One closely watched case involves Visa, Pornhub, and Serena Fleites, who alleges that videos she recorded as a teenager were uploaded to Pornhub without her consent. Fleites argues that Pornhub facilitated sex trafficking and that Visa, by processing payments connected to the platform, participated in that venture. Reitman notes that there is no allegation Visa processed payments tied specifically to the videos in question, and that the overwhelming majority of Pornhub’s content involved legal adult material. Still, a judge declined to dismiss the claims against Visa.

The implications could be enormous.

“If credit card companies are held liable for the potential illegal content hosted by websites that have any kind of payment or advertising service, it creates an untenable burden on credit card companies to review and police every piece of content on any aspect of the web that has any form of payment,” Reitman writes. “It is hard to overstate how far-reaching and dangerous it would be for the courts to hold Visa liable because users decided to upload illegal content onto Pornhub.”

Critics warn that such liability standards could pressure payment processors to aggressively police speech and content across vast portions of the internet, especially on platforms hosting user-generated material or controversial discussions.

Bankers as Sex Police

Faced with legal exposure and reputational concerns, many financial institutions have adopted increasingly strict oversight of adult content platforms.

“Bankers are making sweeping decisions about what types of sexual speech should exist online today,” Reitman writes.

Mike Stabile of the Free Speech Coalition told Reitman that adult websites sometimes provide banks with passwords allowing direct review of platform content. According to Stabile, banks routinely flag specific words, categories, and scenes that sites must remove in order to maintain payment processing services.

Meanwhile, Cathy Beardsley, CEO of Segpay, said banks and payment companies also use automated scanning systems to monitor merchant sites.

“Use spiders, and they’ll go through the websites monthly looking for terms and words that will get flagged, that we have to then have our merchants clean up,” Beardsley told Reitman.

Mastercard receives particular attention in the book for what critics describe as broad and often vague standards governing acceptable content. Banks and payment processors are frequently left interpreting those standards on their own, creating inconsistent enforcement and uncertainty across the adult industry.

Whether driven by liability fears, public pressure, or institutional conservatism, large financial companies wield enormous influence over who can participate online. Reitman argues that limited competition within banking only magnifies that power.

“Banks enjoy special privileges and benefits (like government backed insurance), and there are lots of barriers to entry for start-up companies wanting to enter the financial space,” she notes.

More competition, she suggests, could reduce some of the pressure points currently shaping the industry. But heavy regulation also makes new entrants difficult.

A Section 230 for Banks?

Among Reitman’s more notable proposals is legislation modeled loosely after Section 230 protections for internet platforms.

“We need legislation to make it clear that payment intermediaries, banks, and credit card companies are not liable for the activities of the people and institutions who use their services,” she writes.

The book also explores the potential — and limitations — of alternatives such as cash and cryptocurrency.

More than anything, though, Transaction Denied frames financial exclusion as a growing systemic issue rather than a series of isolated incidents. Cases involving WikiLeaks, Backpage, Pornhub, or the NRA are often easy for the public to dismiss because they involve polarizing organizations or industries. But Reitman argues the underlying mechanisms extend far beyond any one political movement, industry, or ideology.

By tracing stories across a wide range of communities and viewpoints, the book presents financial exclusion as the product of overlapping political, regulatory, cultural, and corporate pressures. The institutions enforcing these restrictions may be private, but the incentives shaping their behavior often originate elsewhere.

And that may be the part making some people uneasy now. Not just who loses access to financial systems — but how ordinary the process has started to feel.

Read More »

DÜSSELDORF, Germany — For two months, the Facebook page for Playboy Germany sat in limbo. Then, just like that, it was back — restored after a court stepped in and told Meta to reverse course.

A regional court in Düsseldorf issued an injunction against the company, finding that the decision to block the page wasn’t lawful.

The page, followed by roughly 1.8 million people, had gone dark on Feb. 17.

In a statement, Kouneli Media — the company behind Playboy Germany — said Meta justified the takedown by pointing to alleged violations of its community standards, including nudity and sexual content. But according to the company, no specific posts were identified. Instead, the notice referenced activity that only “seemed” to break the rules.

The situation echoes a broader pattern that’s been hard to ignore. Across Meta’s platforms, moderation decisions often land without much warning — or clarity. Accounts tied to adult content, even those operating within legal bounds, can disappear overnight. Earlier this month, the Instagram account of sex tech company Bellesa was also taken down.

Kouneli Media has since filed a complaint with Germany’s Federal Network Agency, an independent regulator overseeing telecommunications and digital infrastructure.

Read More »

WASHINGTON — Federal banking regulators on Tuesday finalized a rule removing “reputation risk” as a factor in supervising financial institutions.

Under the new rule, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are barred from “criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk.” The rule also bars the agencies from “requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close an account, to refrain from providing an account, product, or service, or to modify or terminate any product or service” based on a customer’s political, social, cultural or religious views, constitutionally protected speech, or lawful business activity viewed as presenting reputation risk.

The action follows an Aug. 7, 2025, executive order directing financial institutions not to deny or limit services to customers engaged in lawful activities on political grounds.

After that order, the OCC released a report on debanking that identified several sectors facing account closures or service restrictions, including the adult entertainment industry, citing concerns among banks about alignment with internal standards.

In March, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson issued warnings to payment processors such as PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard regarding practices that restrict access to services based on lawful but higher-risk activities.

The impact of the rule on industries that have reported difficulties accessing banking services remains uncertain. Although the OCC report identified adult entertainment as one of the affected sectors, regulators have not provided additional detail on how the new rule will be applied in practice.

While the rule prevents the OCC and FDIC from penalizing institutions for serving customers engaged in “politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk,” it does not limit banks’ ability to make decisions based on other supervisory considerations, including “safety and soundness.” Institutions may continue to restrict services under those criteria.

The Free Speech Coalition submitted comments in support of the proposed rule and recommended expanding its scope to apply more directly to banks. Those proposals were not adopted in the final version.

“The rule removes a key driver of banking discrimination against the adult industry,” said Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden. “Federal examiners can no longer pressure banks to close accounts or deny services to lawful businesses based on reputation risk. It’s not going to solve all of our problems, but it’s a necessary piece of securing fair banking access for our industry.”

Read More »

WASHINGTON — Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters Thursday to the chief executives of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard, warning against debanking practices, including denying access to financial services based on a customer’s lawful business activities.

“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” the letters state. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”

The executive order prohibits banks, savings associations, credit unions and other financial service providers from restricting access to accounts, loans or other services based on a customer’s lawful business activities that the institution may disagree with or view unfavorably for political reasons.

Following the order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a report on debanking that identified several sectors, including adult entertainment, as facing potential discrimination due to activities considered inconsistent with certain financial institutions’ values.

Ferguson’s letters state that companies engaging in deplatforming or denying services to such customers could face Federal Trade Commission investigations and possible enforcement action.

Possible Pressure on Banks via Card Brands

The letters to Visa and Mastercard also reference the role of payment networks and providers, noting concerns about financial institutions that restrict access to services for these reasons. Ferguson wrote that it is “critical” for card networks not to allow unlawful debanking by member institutions, including banks that process transactions on their systems.

“Consumers cannot reasonably avoid this harm, particularly where, as is almost always the case, the First Amendment-protected activity that triggered the adverse action against them had no logical connection to, or material bearing on, their commercial relationship with the payment provider or network,” Ferguson wrote.

The letters suggest that payment networks may play a role in addressing practices by financial institutions that deny services under these circumstances.

The potential for additional oversight comes as questions remain about the extent of regulatory action from banking agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration.

Proposed rules would restrict those agencies from taking action against institutions for providing services to individuals or businesses engaged in lawful activities that may be viewed as presenting reputational risk. However, those rules would still allow banks to make decisions regarding customers based on considerations tied to safety and soundness.

It remains unclear how enforcement priorities will be applied across different industries, including those identified in prior regulatory reports.

Read More »

SAN FRANCISCO — OpenAI is expected to limit its planned “adult mode” feature so that it does not generate deepfakes or synthetic NSFW images, instead restricting the tool to sexually explicit text, according to a report published Sunday.

The report cited an unnamed company spokesperson who said the change is necessary, adding that a rollout timeline has not yet been finalized. The feature had already been delayed as the company reviews concerns related to mental health risks and other potential uses of the technology.

Members of an advisory council of mental health experts selected by OpenAI warned the company in January that the proposed “adult mode” could pose significant risks to minors. One council member, who was not identified, said the feature could potentially lead to the creation of what they described as a “sexy suicide coach.”

The report also indicated that OpenAI’s internal age verification efforts had been considered “spotty.” Chief executive officer and co-founder Sam Altman said in October that the company planned to deploy age assurance and estimation tools to identify users aged 18 and older. In January, OpenAI expanded those efforts by implementing technology from an online identity provider called Persona, which has faced criticism from some observers who described it as invasive and prone to errors.

Read More »

The Cato Institute has published a report on debanking. You can find it here: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/understanding-debanking-evaluating-governmental-operational-political-religious?utm_source=social&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share

Here’s what the report is all about:

Debanking can be a frustrating and deeply unsettling experience. One day everything seems fine, and the next, a notice arrives giving just 30 days to withdraw funds and find a new financial institution. Confusion quickly turns into anxiety. Bills were paid, nothing appeared out of the ordinary — so what changed? A call to the bank rarely brings clarity, and the response is often the same: no further details can be provided. Customers are left with more questions than answers.

On the other side of the conversation, bankers are frequently constrained by strict confidentiality requirements. Even frontline staff may not have access to the underlying reasons for an account closure. Financial institutions operate within a framework of anti–money laundering, know your customer, and countering the financing of terrorism regulations — commonly referred to as AML, KYC, and CFT. While these rules are standard practice within the industry, they remain largely invisible to the public, creating a disconnect that fuels frustration on both sides.

For those looking to address the growing concern around debanking, some argue that meaningful change will require greater transparency. That could mean reconsidering the confidentiality that surrounds account closures, removing reputational risk as a regulatory factor, and reevaluating the Bank Secrecy Act framework that effectively places financial institutions in the role of investigative gatekeepers.

Read More »

It starts with a quiet email. No warning. No phone call. Just a notice that your account is under review—or worse, closed.

That’s what’s happening to women’s health and sexual wellness companies across the United Kingdom and Europe. Not because they’ve broken laws. Not because they’ve done anything shady. But because somewhere in a compliance department, someone ticked the wrong box and labeled them “adult content.”

New research from two U.K.-based advocacy groups, CensHERship and The Case For Her, digs into what’s really going on. And it’s uncomfortable reading. The report argues that women’s health innovators are being misclassified in financial systems, triggering debanking and account shutdowns that can stall or even sink young companies.

“What we find is that misclassification, over-compliance, cultural discomfort, and outdated policy language combine to create structural barriers for women’s health innovation, and that the identified structural barriers tend to fall into two forms,” the research explains.

Those two forms? “Misclassification” and “misunderstanding.”

Misclassification is described as “where women’s health and sexual wellbeing are misread as adult content. This is the most visible and well-documented form of bias.”

Misunderstanding, on the other hand, is “where women’s health is overlooked as too new, complex, or unfamiliar to fit existing risk templates. These cases are harder to surface because they are often resolved quietly or never formally recorded.”

That second one hits differently. It’s the kind of bias that doesn’t shout. It just shrugs. Too new. Too complex. Too awkward. Next.

Some of the companies affected are household names in the space, including SheSpot, a widely recognized brand. These aren’t fringe operators. They’re mainstream wellness businesses trying to build products around bodies that, frankly, have been underserved for generations.

The report goes further: “Because most financial institutions have never explicitly defined women’s health or FemTech within their risk frameworks, systems default to the nearest analogue—typically adult content, vice categories, or other ‘sensitive’ sectors.”

That line sticks. Systems default. That’s how it happens. No villain twirling a mustache. Just outdated templates and risk models built in eras when women’s sexual health was barely discussed in polite company. So instead of creating a new category, institutions drag these companies into old ones—adult content, vice, high-risk.

It’s lazy. It’s structural. And it’s expensive.

Both CensHERship and The Case For Her argue that outdated classification systems, cultural discomfort, and unconscious bias are creating real barriers to growth. Being labeled “adult content” or “adult services” doesn’t just sound insulting—it places these businesses in a “high-risk sector” alongside firearms manufacturing and tobacco cultivation and marketing.

Think about that for a second. A company developing pelvic health tools or hormone-tracking tech ends up sitting in the same risk bucket as cigarette production.

This isn’t just semantics. Risk labels determine whether you can open a bank account, process payments, attract investors, or scale internationally. When the system quietly decides your innovation is morally adjacent to vice, you feel it everywhere.

Honestly, it raises a bigger question: if financial institutions can’t tell the difference between sexual wellness and adult entertainment, what does that say about the frameworks we’re still operating under?

Maybe the real issue isn’t that women’s health is “too new.” Maybe it’s that the systems judging it are too old.

Read More »

Your bank may never send you a memo about it, but it’s quietly shaping your life.

Every time you click “buy now,” a small army of institutions decides whether that purchase gets to exist. And for adult creators, that army has been steadily tightening its grip. For years, people in the industry have been warning about financial discrimination and debanking — the sudden closure of accounts, the polite but devastating “we can no longer do business with you.” It’s happening more often now. And it’s happening quietly.

“I don’t know what could happen next or when it might happen,”

Adult VTuber, journalist, and activist Ana Valens says. In just two weeks last November, nearly every platform she relied on either removed her content or suspended her outright. “While my Patreon and Ko-fi were reinstated, I’ve spent the past two months waiting for the other shoe to drop — another Patreon ban, my PayPal deactivated, and so on.” She reached out for explanations. Most platforms couldn’t clearly articulate how she’d violated their terms. Ko-fi didn’t respond until repeated messages finally led to reinstatement.

That kind of uncertainty lingers. It’s like walking on ice that might crack at any moment.

“Deplatforming and debanking are an occupational hazard for any adult content creator,” says Gina, a co-founder of PeepMe, a startup that set out to build a worker-owned creator marketplace. PeepMe was imagined as an alternative to OnlyFans and Patreon — a space where creators could hold equity, elect a democratic board, and receive quarterly profit-sharing dividends.

Gina requested that a pseudonym be used, given her continued work adjacent to the adult industry and the very real fear of financial fallout. “Even still, I’ve never seen someone banned on so many sites before [as Ana has been],” she says.

And it’s not just adult creators feeling the pressure. Companies in oil and gas, cryptocurrency, tobacco, and firearms have also raised concerns about politically motivated debanking. The pushback has grown loud enough that U.S. regulators are now stepping in, attempting to rein in financial discrimination.

Who’s Blocking My Buying?

When you make an online purchase, your money doesn’t travel in a straight line. It passes through layers of gatekeepers. The pipeline often looks like this:

1. Platform (merchant) websites: where creators earn income — YouTube, Patreon, Etsy, DoorDash, Steam.

2. Payment processors: companies that route the transaction between card networks and banks — PayPal, Stripe.

3. Card networks: Visa, American Express, Mastercard — the rule-makers that standardize how buyers and sellers interact.

4. Your bank and the seller’s bank: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and so on.

Each step has discretion. Beyond preventing illegal activity, these institutions can decide what kinds of money they’re willing to touch.

“The rules set by card networks are sometimes vague,” says Dr. Val Webber, a postdoctoral researcher at Dalhousie University’s Sexual Health and Gender Research Lab. Mastercard’s June 2025 rules restrict “any Transaction that […] in the sole discretion of [Mastercard], may damage the goodwill of [Mastercard] or reflect negatively on the [brand].”

“In the sole discretion” is doing a lot of work there.

Last summer, Steam and itch.io removed or deindexed adult games after pressure from payment processors and card networks. Steam cited pressure from Mastercard, conveyed through processors like Stripe. Stripe told itch.io, “Stripe is currently unable to support sexually explicit content due to restrictions placed on them by their banking partners, despite card networks generally supporting adult content.” Stripe’s prohibited business list includes “pornography and other mature audience content (including literature, imagery, and other media) designed for the purpose of sexual gratification.”

Mastercard later denied involvement. In August 2025, the company stated, “Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations.”

Meanwhile, Valens saw her articles disappear from Vice. “My suspicion is that it was easy for a financial company to flag me as high risk as a punitive measure for my content, or my activism work,” she says. Attempts to obtain comment from Vice were unsuccessful.

Who Can Get Debanked?

“We have lots of data to show that people in the adult industry face financial discrimination in the form of their accounts being closed, being denied mortgages, business loans, and other banking services — despite banks often not being able to substantiate legal reasons related to these individual accounts,” says Maggie MacDonald, a PhD researcher at the University of Toronto.

The tension escalated in December 2020 when Visa and Mastercard cut ties with Pornhub, citing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). “Our adult content standards allow for legal adult activity created by consenting individuals or studios,” Mastercard said at the time. “Merchants must have controls to monitor, block and remove unlawful content from being posted.” Pornhub denied hosting illegal content and emphasized the harm to “the hundreds of thousands of models who rely on [their] platform for their livelihoods.”

But here’s the inconsistency that nags at people: X continues to process payments despite widespread reports of CSAM and non-consensual deepfake content. No sweeping financial freeze there.

Watching major platforms lose payment relationships makes smaller startups tread lightly. “We just can’t afford to lose our ability to do business with these financial companies,” Gina says. “Stripe takes only 2.9 percent from businesses they’re willing to work with, while high-risk processors willing to take on adult content can charge up to 15 percent.”

That difference can sink a company before it starts.

“Losing a relationship with card networks is a risk payment processors can’t afford, and losing relationships with payment processors is a risk that platform websites can’t afford,” explains Webber. “In the end, the responsibility of ensuring their content stays within the lines of these oftentimes unclear rules trickles down to each individual creator. Because ultimately, content creators are more expendable to platforms than payment processors and card networks.”

One justification often cited is chargebacks — when customers reverse credit card transactions. Gina isn’t convinced.

“Locking out entire industries makes less and less sense as fraud detection technology advances,” she says. “Payment processors and card networks already have processes to step in when an individual business has a high rate of chargebacks, there’s no reason to block out a whole industry.” Mastercard recently announced expanded generative AI fraud-detection tools, building on already sophisticated monitoring systems.

“We also haven’t seen the claim of high-chargebacks in adult content substantiated anywhere in terms of measured data,” adds MacDonald. “As a researcher, that makes me suspicious of the criteria these companies are using behind the scenes.”

The Evolving Landscape of Banking Regulations

In February 2025, the Free Speech Coalition filed a statement with the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, calling for due process protections, objective risk assessments, and explicit recognition that lawful adult businesses do not inherently present financial crime risk. Blocking entire industries without individualized evaluation, the statement argued, is regulatory overreach with serious implications for free speech.

Multiple efforts are underway in the United States to limit financial institutions from denying service for reasons beyond legal violations. In August 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing regulators to investigate and reverse politically motivated debanking. Bank regulators have begun removing “reputational risk” from compliance criteria, and proposed Senate legislation would impose civil fines on banks and card networks that avoid entire categories of customers.

“Card networks and payment processors began by blocking pornography, but they’ve moved into other online industries as well,” says Webber. “The line in the sand continues to shift, and it has recently expanded to video game creators and streamers as well. We don’t know how these rules might evolve, and what type of online content might be next.”

Valens has spent months urging customers to call Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, and Stripe to question purchase restrictions and account freezes. Visa points to its policies for combating illegal activity; PayPal requires pre-approval for adult materials, similar to tobacco; Stripe states it does not support adult content.

“Private companies have been deputized to decide how we can earn and spend our money,” says MacDonald. “Anyone who is ideologically misaligned with any of these companies faces the risk of losing their livelihood.”

That’s the part that lingers.

It’s not just about porn, or games, or activism. It’s about the invisible committee that votes on your transactions — and whether one day, without warning, they decide you don’t get a vote at all.

Read More »