Legal Attacks

As you might have read recently, Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s regulatory agency covering the broadcasting, telecommunications and internet sectors, has opened an investigation into whether TikTok is complying with the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

While TikTok is nobody’s idea of a “porn site,” sexually explicit content does get uploaded to TikTok, despite doing so being against both the platform’s terms and conditions and its community guidelines. (Specifically, the TikTok’s community guidelines prohibit “some types of body exposure or sexual behavior, including nudity, sexual activity, sexual services, or any sexually suggestive behavior or significant exposure involving young people.”)

Ofcom, of course, doesn’t particularly care what the TikTok terms say, or what the company’s intent might be in terms of keeping porn off the platform and/or protecting minors from harmful content. For Ofcom, the mere fact a minor canaccess what the agency deems to be “inappropriate” or “harmful” suggests a platform isn’t fully compliant with the OSA.

The big issue here appears to be that while TikTok is doing something to assess the age of users, its methods don’t satisfy the standard as determined by Ofcom.

“Our message to social media companies is clear: those which use age inference models to comply with their child protection duties should switch to other methods listed in our guidance as highly effective without delay,” Ofcom said in an announcement assessing the efficacy of the OSA in the initial months since it became enforceable.

The UK is also mulling the possibility of introducing a social media ban for users under the age of 16. If enacted, clearly this ban will mean ‘mainstream’ platforms like TikTok will need to employ more stringent age verification methods, as Ofcom has made clear that “age inference” models simply won’t cut it.

I suspect what we’re seeing in the UK right now will spread around the globe in the months and years to come, creating a version of the internet quite unlike the one we’ve been using for the last 30+ years. As I see it, where this is headed is universal age verification requirements for all platforms that permit “user generated content” to be uploaded or otherwise published in their ecosystems.

As has been the case with the internet since it first crawled out of the cyber-primordial ooze of the ARPANET, the difficulty in regulating online content boils down to the fact that just about anyone can upload just about anything to any site or platform that allows them to do so.

In the earliest days of my online explorations, message boards and Usenet groups were flooded with dodgy content, from pilfered intellectual property to hate speech and all points in between. There was virtually no regulation (or at least none that clearly applied to this new digital environment) at the time, so for end users it was “surfer beware” out there, effectively.

These days, we’re flooded with regulations, from state and local governments trying to tame the internet as accessed by their citizens to national governments seemingly trying to throw an age-gated blanket over the entire world wide web.

For the people who support these measures, I suppose no amount of inconvenience to adults is unjustified in their quest to protect children online. And while I can understand that perspective, the question is, how far will regulators go to make marginal gains toward their goal?

In the statement published last week, Ofcom noted something that jumped out at me: “Among the minority of online children who attempt to access pornography (8%), the presence of age checks acts as an effective deterrent.”

Previously, Ofcom cited a study which reported that “Twitter was the online platform where young people were most likely to have seen pornography.”

Put those two statements together and you can see where this is heading. If porn sites aren’t where most kids are being exposed to porn, then agencies like Ofcom are going to turn more of their attention to non-adult platforms, like TikTok, X, Snapchat and others of their ilk.

The bottom line, as I read it, is this: If you operate a platform that allows users to upload content, you will eventually be roped in by age verification regulations, whether it’s the OSA being enforced by Ofcom, or one of the other (eventually countless) regulations and agencies cropping up around the world.

There’s one small problem, though. While the web may seem more ‘tamed’ now than it did in the 1990s, the modern internet still has something important in common with its ancestral forms: All it takes to launch a new website or platform is the will to do it and at least one internet-connected device. What gets shut down on Monday morning can be back up later the same morning, albeit at a different IP address.

As such, the government-led game of Whack-A-Mole by law and regulation will continue to aim at moving targets, even as new targets appear in the wake of those they’ve already shot down.

Good luck with your enforcement regime, Ofcom. And good luck to all those platforms who try in good faith to comply with their rules. Meanwhile, cyber criminals will simply continue to dodge the mallet and pop up somewhere else.

LONDON—Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s digital regulator, announced Wednesday that it is investigating TikTok as it released its first report on age-verification use since the country’s Online Safety Act took effect last summer.

Over the past year, major digital platforms operating in the U.K. have rolled out age checks at what Ofcom described as an “unprecedented scale.” The regulator said more than 69 million checks have been completed across 32 platforms.

Ofcom said the measures are an important step as the country considers a ban on social media use for people aged 16 and under. Among adult-entertainment platforms and pornography websites, the 10 most popular sites in the U.K. and most of the top 100 porn sites have introduced age checks. Ofcom said the share of minors asked to verify their age before accessing a site rose from 25 percent in July 2025 to 43 percent in January 2026.

Ofcom noted, “Among the minority of online children who attempt to access pornography (8%), the presence of age checks acts as an effective deterrent. Half of these children only reached sites with age checks in place. Nearly nine in ten of these children’s visits (87%) to porn sites were for under 30 seconds, and 65% were for less than 10 seconds.”

Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, praised the agency’s work.

“Age checks are a cornerstone of the U.K.’s online safety laws,” she said. “When implemented properly, our evidence shows that age checks are helping to create a safer life online for children in the U.K.

“But the job is not done, and tech companies need to go further. Too many services have no or inadequate age checks in place, which is not good enough,” Dawes added.

Dawes said Ofcom has opened an investigation into TikTok. The video-sharing platform is also used by adult-industry creators and companies to promote scenes and productions. The new enforcement effort also includes search engines such as Google and Bing.

She explained, “We’ve today launched an investigation into whether TikTok’s age checks are effective in preventing children from seeing harmful content on its platform. And search engines must urgently work with us to solve the problem of children finding porn sites without age checks too easily via their results pages.

“As the U.K. prepares for further new social media restrictions at 16, the age check landscape is already shifting towards a stronger, whole-of-system approach, which is important to avoid any single point of failure,” Dawes concluded.

“We want to see continued innovation from the wider tech industry to strengthen protections for children—including from operating systems and at an app store and device-level.”

A TikTok spokesperson said the company “strictly enforces age-appropriate experiences through expert-informed platform rules and advanced age inference technologies, in line with major industry peers.” The spokesperson added that TikTok is “confident” it complies with the requirements.

CANBERRA, Australia—Australia’s digital regulator has told Parliament it will examine whether widely available virtual private networks, or VPNs, are being used to bypass the country’s age-verification rules for pornography websites.

Budget documents submitted to the Australian Senate in May show that eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant’s office is concerned that platforms covered by technology industry codes may still be receiving web traffic from IP addresses in Australia that has not gone through age verification.

“Under the codes, there are requirements that service providers must take reasonable steps to prevent workarounds like VPNs so eSafety will look at this when considering compliance with codes,” the budget documents state. The documents include an appropriations proposal for Grant’s office.

The concern follows Australian search-engine data from March showing increased interest in the terms “VPN” and “virtual private network.” The rise came as authorities began enforcing age-verification requirements for age-restricted platforms and moved to restrict social media access for minors.

The introduction of the under-16 social-media ban affected a broad range of online services in Australia. Around the same period, Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, said its platforms would be restricted in Australia to comply with the new laws.

Industry codes in Australia require the parent companies of online pornography providers to establish and enforce “appropriate age assurance measures.” Those measures can include identity checks, credit-card verification, artificial-intelligence-assisted biometric age estimation, and other methods.

VPNs, however, have long been used to bypass content blocks and age-verification rules in Australia, the United States, and other countries.

Grant’s office told members of the Australian Senate that it is working on ways to limit unverified VPN traffic.

“This is similar to eSafety’s regulatory guidance for the social media minimum age, where eSafety considers VPN detection as a reasonable step to prevent underage users from having an account,” the documents submitted by Grant’s office state.

“[The] Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport, and the Arts knows that tech companies can tell when a VPN is in use.”

LONDON — The United Kingdom’s digital regulator, Ofcom, has imposed another substantial fine on an online adult entertainment platform, saying it failed to meet the country’s age verification requirements.

The operator of the media-sharing website Fapello.com has been fined £630,000, or roughly $850,000 based on current exchange rates. In announcing the penalty Thursday, the regulator said the fine stemmed from “not having age checks in place, and … for failing to respond to a legally binding information request on time.”

“Robust age checks are a cornerstone of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act,” the agency said. “Sites that host pornographic material must use ‘highly effective’ age assurance to determine whether a particular user is over 18, in order to prevent children from readily accessing that content.”

The regulator imposed a £600,000 fine for failing to comply with the age assurance requirements, along with an additional £30,000 penalty for not responding to official information requests within the required timeframe.

“Age checks are no longer optional for porn sites in the U.K.,” said George Lusty, the regulator’s director of enforcement. “They are a cornerstone of our laws to protect children from content they should not be seeing.”

The regulator also announced Thursday that it has opened an investigation into the operators of Eporner.com. The platform is operated by parent company Bit Hive, a shell company linked to the owners of a business based in Germany and Poland.

“Our investigation will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bit Hive has failed, or is failing, to comply with the section 12 duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 (‘the Act’), which requires providers to prevent children from encountering pornographic content by implementing highly effective age assurance,” the regulator said in its notice.

The investigation into Eporner.com remains ongoing.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri has become the latest state to formally place age verification requirements for pornography websites into state law.

Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a package of public safety bills on Thursday that included House Bill 1839, the age verification measure introduced by Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton.

The legislation was sponsored in the Missouri Senate during the most recent legislative session by Republican State Sen. Mike Henderson of Cape Girardeau.

“The legislation I signed today strengthens the laws that protect our families, supports the men and women who serve our country and communities, and gives our state stronger tools to keep dangerous criminals off our streets,” Gov. Kehoe said in a statement announcing the bill package.

Under House Bill 1839, any website where at least 33 percent of its content is considered harmful to minors or classified as pornographic must verify the age of its users. The requirement applies not only to adult websites but also to mainstream social media platforms, including Reddit and X, if they meet the law’s threshold.

Missouri’s attorney general will enforce the law through civil actions. Violations can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per day, with an additional fine of $250,000 if minors are found to have accessed age-restricted content.

The law is scheduled to take effect on Aug. 28, nearly two months after the close of the state’s fiscal year on June 30. Missouri officials had previously pursued age verification through a regulatory action issued in 2025 by then-Attorney General Andrew Bailey, an effort later supported by his successor, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway. Lawmakers ultimately chose to place the requirement into state statute in an effort to strengthen its standing against potential legal challenges in state court.

Over on WIRED right now, there’s an article about the unexpected role adult content creators are playing in identifying potential security breaches on government (.gov) and university (.edu) websites.

To make a long (and well worth reading) story short, phishers, scammers and other folks of their distasteful ilk have been downloading content from these adult creators, uploading it to .gov and .edu sites they’ve compromised (or otherwise have access to) and using it as clickbait to draw people in to click malicious links, download malware or otherwise expose themselves to risk of becoming a cybercrime victim.

Since many adult content creators use DMCA takedown services, or sent out takedown notices themselves, by reporting links to Google for removal, these creators have unwittingly contributed to the cyber security of both the sites themselves and users who might stumble across the links in Google’s search results.

Near the end of the article, content creator Laura Lux is asked what she made of the DMCA notices potentially notifying site administrators they’ve had a breach. Her response? “I guess sex workers save the world again.”

The story got me thinking about adult content piracy and a different kind of possibly unwitting role being played, this one related to the War on Porn.

I suspect a lot of people who download and “share” the pictures and videos made by adult content creators don’t think of what they’re doing as harmful. Those of them who aren’t trying to make a buck off the content in some way might even believe they’re doing the creators a service, promoting them via ‘word of mouth,’ in effect.

But when you download and distribute content that was made to be sold, you’re not only devaluing the product and undermining the creator’s business model. You’re often also encouraging the perception that adult content is being distributed without thought of complying with the law by the creators themselves, even though your distribution of the content is something they actively don’t want to occur.

Redistributing content without the consent of the rightsholders is bad enough, but pirated adult content is often uploaded to platforms that make no pretense of following any law or complying with any regulation. Platforms that turn a willfully blind eye to regulations then stoke the ire of people like legislators, anti-porn activists and self-righteous TV bloviators, who inevitably tar the entire adult industry with the brush of criminality. (They also sometimes inspire attorneys general to take unusual actions in court, but that’s another story.)

It’s worth remembering that outside of the people who make, sell, distribute or otherwise profit from porn, we don’t enjoy much support in the public sphere. It’s undoubtedly true a hefty percentage of voters enjoy watching porn. But for a variety of reasons, mostly tied up in shame and/or a desire to keep certain aspects of our lives private, we’re probably not going to see big pro-porn rallies in the streets at times when some overreaching new law targeting the adult industry is being debated.

Given that, this is my simple appeal to those outside the adult industry, but who are on “our side” when it comes to the War on Porn: If you can’t openly support us, please at least consider not fighting against us, accidentally or otherwise.

The guidelines here are quite simple, really. Pay for porn when its creators intend for it to be sold and buy it on the platforms its creators have authorized to distribute their work. Don’t ‘share’ their content with tens of millions of ‘friends.’ When you get opportunities to interact with adult content creators, be respectful. If you feel shame because you watch porn, don’t take that shame out on those who make it by denouncing us as whores and panderers; just hire a fucking therapist already and sort yourself out!

And for fuck’s sake, don’t go around hacking university or government websites and uploading porn to them. That’s not just working against “our side;” that’s declaring that the only side you’re on is one that should be in prison.

Nine people connected to a pornography business are set to stand trial in the Czech Republic on human trafficking charges after prosecutors alleged they lured young women with promises of modeling work before coercing them into appearing in pornographic films.

The defendants have denied the allegations. Their defense is expected to argue that the women voluntarily agreed to participate in the productions and signed contracts that clearly outlined the nature of the videos.

According to investigators, the group promoted modeling opportunities for women over the age of 18 between 2016 and 2019, but authorities claim the advertisements concealed the true purpose of the recruitment.

“Detectives concluded that these offers were no more than a veil for the production and subsequent distribution of pornographic films,” the Czech organized crime unit (NCOZ) said.

Authorities said many of the women experienced lasting consequences after taking part in the productions.

“Many manifested psychological and health problems and had to seek medical aid including long-term treatment,” the NCOZ said, adding that investigators believe hundreds of women may have been affected.

The case brought by the State Prosecutors’ Bureau centers on 18 women identified as victims. Prosecutor’s office spokesman Aleš Cimbala said prosecutors will argue that those behind the operation subjected the women to increasing pressure throughout the recruitment process.

“At casting, the organizers created the impression of a rush or played down the importance of the agreements signed” in order to secure the women’s consent, he said.

The indictment spans 629 pages.

Prague has long been recognized as a hub for the adult entertainment industry. Following the 1989 Velvet Revolution, which brought an end to communist rule in former Czechoslovakia, looser censorship rules and the country’s shift to a market economy attracted pornography producers to the region.

If convicted, the defendants could face prison sentences of up to 12 years, according to Prague city prosecutors.

“The accused include people organizing the Czech Casting project, as well as people ensuring finances, casting production and agreements,” Cimbala said.

He added that photographers, camera operators and actors are also among those facing charges.

BRUSSELS — A civil society organization working across the European Union and internationally has released a report alleging that the three largest pornography platforms operating within the EU are not fully meeting the compliance standards required under the Digital Services Act (DSA) for so-called very large online platforms (VLOPs).

The Digital Intimacy Coalition (DIC) completed its study in April 2026 but did not publicly release its findings until July 6. The report examines three platforms: Aylo-owned Pornhub.com, Technius-owned Stripchat.com, and WebGroup Czech Republic-owned XVideos.com.

All three websites have been designated as VLOPs by the European Commission under the DSA. That designation gives the Commission authority to subject adult entertainment platforms, along with major social networks, to heightened regulatory oversight focused on online safety and compliance throughout the European Union.

Traditionally, VLOPs are defined as online platforms with more than 45 million users across the EU’s 27 member states.

Although the platforms have argued that they serve fewer than 45 million users within the European Union, the Commission has continued to classify sites such as Stripchat and Pornhub as VLOPs. Critics have questioned whether the current definition of a VLOP is appropriate, arguing that the criteria remain open to interpretation. Under the DSA, however, platforms carrying the designation are required to satisfy a number of compliance obligations each year.

According to the Digital Intimacy Coalition, its review identified areas where the three platforms are not fulfilling their “legal obligations to meaningfully assess platform risk,” as outlined in the report.

DIC described its publication as “the first in-depth independent analysis of the legally mandated risk assessments … examined through a sex-positive lens that treats gender-based violence and the over-moderation of consensual content as equally serious violations of fundamental rights.”

“Zero platforms recognise sexual autonomy as a fundamental right. Not one platform’s methodology was found to be documented or reproducible,” DIC added. Carlotta Rigotti, head of DIC’s Risk Assessment Analysis Taskforce, said, “These risk assessments were supposed to be a transparency tool. Instead, they read like reputation management.

“Severity ratings are unsubstantiated, AI-generated content is ignored entirely, and not one platform grapples with the real tension at the heart of this industry: how to protect against gender-based violence without erasing the right to sexual autonomy,” Rigotti continued.

Ana Ornelas, the coalition’s advocacy officer, added, “What is missing from these assessments is just as telling as what is in them.

“We do not have data on moderator welfare, disclosure of civil society partnerships, or engagement with platform architecture or recommender systems, despite that being an explicit legal requirement. Regulators and the public deserve better than this,” Ornelas said. The report also identifies four structural weaknesses that it says appear across all three platforms in relation to the legal requirements for reporting risk assessments. According to the analysis, the assessment methodologies are “opaque” and “non-reproducible.”

The report also states that the platforms rely on a narrow definition of gender-based violence, focusing primarily on the removal of non-consensual image sharing. It further argues that platform policies appear to be driven more by reputational concerns than user safety, while claiming that mitigation measures are often insufficient and that statements regarding their effectiveness are not adequately supported.

The platforms did not provide comments addressing the specific findings outlined in the Digital Intimacy Coalition’s report. An Aylo spokesperson said the company’s latest risk assessment, completed in April, is expected to be published later this month. According to the spokesperson, that report “covers many of the areas addressed in the analysis.”

SAN FRANCISCO — A three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a lawsuit brought by two anonymous plaintiffs against Fenix International Limited, the parent company of OnlyFans.com, over alleged violations of California’s broad law regulating automatically renewing subscription services.

The appellate panel, in an unpublished memorandum issued June 30, reversed a federal district court’s dismissal of the proposed class action and sent the case back for further proceedings. The judges concluded that the lower court incorrectly determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Fenix under California’s unfair competition law.

California’s unfair competition law was amended following the adoption of the California Automatic Renewal Law (CARL).

The law requires businesses that offer subscriptions, free trials, and recurring digital payments to obtain “explicit affirmative consent” from consumers while also providing “clear disclosures” explaining how customers can easily cancel their subscriptions. The requirements apply to businesses offering digital products and services, including adult websites that rely on recurring subscription models.

The lawsuit was filed by two consumers who challenged the way recurring subscriptions and payments operate on the OnlyFans platform.

According to the district court order issued in April 2025 granting Fenix’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs alleged that OnlyFans failed to create a user experience that adequately obtained the “consumer’s affirmative consent to the agreement containing automatic renewal terms.” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California dismissed the case after agreeing with Fenix’s argument that, because the company is headquartered in London, the California court did not have jurisdiction.

“We conclude that Plaintiffs established that Fenix expressly aimed its conduct at California,” the three appellate judges wrote. “Because the district court concluded to the contrary, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. […] Fenix’s arguments that it did not aim any conduct at California ignore that it regularly fulfills users’ subscriptions wherever those users access its online content, including California.”

The ruling sends the case back to Judge Breyer’s court for additional proceedings on the jurisdictional issue, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the outcome could have broader implications for subscription-based creator platforms that operate under business models similar to OnlyFans.

Should the plaintiffs succeed on their claims under the California Automatic Renewal Law, Fenix and the millions of creators who use OnlyFans could face new compliance obligations governing recurring subscriptions.

Those requirements include implementing more transparent billing and subscription practices while ensuring users provide clear, express consent before automatic renewals take effect.

The law also requires companies to notify users of fee increases, updates to subscription terms, and other material changes to user agreements. In addition, cancellation and renewal processes must be straightforward and easy to use, making it simple for subscribers to end recurring payments when they choose.