Legal Attacks

There’s something about the quiet march of legislation that rarely feels quiet. It slips in through committee hearings and procedural language, but underneath it all, you can almost hear the ripple effect coming. That’s the vibe surrounding a new proposal moving through Oklahoma — one aimed squarely at strip clubs, performers, and the rules that shape their livelihoods.

State lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives are weighing a measure that would require licensing for strip clubs and raise the legal minimum age to work as an “exotic entertainer.” On paper, it reads like a technical update. In reality, it touches careers, identities, and the already complicated world of adult entertainment work.

The proposal, known as the “Entertainer Safety and Verification Act,” cleared committee with bipartisan and unanimous support. Legislative records show a surprisingly unified front — the kind that usually signals momentum, whether people are ready for it or not.

House Bill 3832 was reviewed by the House Business Committee earlier this week. Republican state Rep. Stan May, serving as majority caucus chair, introduced the measure with a stated goal of countering “human trafficking” within adult entertainment venues. It’s a familiar justification, one that tends to carry emotional weight and political traction in equal measure.

Under the bill, an “exotic entertainer” is broadly defined as anyone performing in a sexually oriented business — from dancers to other erotic performers. The legislation would require performers to obtain a license from the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement (ABLE) Commission and, notably, be at least 21 years old.

That age requirement alone represents a significant shift. Currently, Oklahoma allows individuals as young as 18 to work as exotic entertainers. To secure a license under the proposed rules, a performer would need to be a U.S. citizen, meet the new age threshold, and have no convictions related to human trafficking, indecent exposure, or prostitution-related offenses. Performing without a license could lead to misdemeanor charges, carrying penalties of up to a $500 fine, a year in county jail, or both.

Repeat violations raise the stakes. Subsequent offenses would still be classified as misdemeanors but could result in fines up to $1,000 and the same potential jail time. Meanwhile, businesses employing unlicensed performers — or failing to keep the required records — would face administrative fines of $5,000 per incident.

Those penalties escalate quickly. Additional violations could trigger $10,000 fines per offense and the suspension of all ABLE-issued licenses for at least a year, a consequence that could effectively shut down operations and ripple through staff and performers alike.

The legal exposure doesn’t stop at fines. Owners and managers who knowingly employ unlicensed entertainers or fail to maintain proper documentation could face felony charges, with penalties of up to $1,000 and prison sentences ranging from one to three years. Further violations would increase both fines and prison time, and offenders would be barred from owning or operating adult clubs featuring licensed dancing.

Oklahoma isn’t alone in this approach. Florida enacted similar legislation, raising the minimum age for dancers from 18 to 21 and attaching criminal penalties for noncompliance. Laws like these tend to arrive in waves, often framed as protective measures but leaving lingering questions about autonomy, economic impact, and unintended consequences.

As it stands, HB 3832 appears poised to move forward through the state legislature, buoyed by bipartisan backing and the expectation of amendments along the way. And that’s the thing about bills like this — they rarely land exactly as introduced, yet the direction they point in is unmistakable. A tightening grip, a shifting standard, and a reminder that in the adult industry, change doesn’t knock politely. It just shows up and rearranges the room.

BRUSSELS—The European Commission announced Monday that it will initiate a Digital Services Act investigation into popular e-commerce platform Shein amid claims that the company hosts “adult” and “age-restricted” content and engages in the marketing and sale of “child-like sex dolls” and child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU), is responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulatory framework for online safety that includes age verification and measures to counter illegal activities. It’s the rulebook for the modern internet marketplace—less Wild West, more guarded storefront. If something wouldn’t fly in a physical shop window, the thinking goes, it shouldn’t get a free pass online either.

“In the EU, illegal products are prohibited—whether they are on a store shelf or on an online marketplace,” said Henna Virkkunen, the executive vice president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, in a press statement announcing the Shein investigation. “The Digital Services Act keeps shoppers safe, protects their well-being, and empowers them with information about the algorithms they are interacting with. We will assess whether Shein is respecting these rules and their responsibility.”

There’s something striking about that phrasing—store shelf or online marketplace. It’s a reminder that regulators are increasingly done pretending the internet is some separate universe. If anything, it’s more powerful. More intimate. And when minors are allegedly exposed to content they shouldn’t be seeing? That’s when patience runs thin.

Much of the investigation stems from French law enforcement efforts, including claims from a government watchdog that Shein and other fast fashion applications that are popular, namely Temu and Ali Express, were exposing minors to pornography. French authorities have been circling these platforms for a while now, particularly as they balloon in popularity among younger users who treat them like digital shopping malls.

Shein was scrutinized by the French government as it was about to open its first brick-and-mortar location in central Paris at the BHV department store. There’s an irony there—stepping into the physical world just as digital scrutiny tightens. It’s almost cinematic. One foot in glossy retail space, the other in regulatory quicksand.

Shein was also facing a ban in French digital spaces, but quickly avoided such action, as reported by the wire service Agence France-Presse via Deutsche Welle. The reprieve, at least for now, doesn’t mean the heat is off. It just means the next chapter is unfolding elsewhere.

“The Commission will now carry out an in-depth investigation as a matter of priority,” the EU says. “The opening of formal proceedings does not prejudge the outcome.”

That line—does not prejudge the outcome—feels carefully calibrated. It’s the regulatory equivalent of keeping a poker face. Serious, but measured. Accusations are one thing. Findings are another.

Other accusations made against Shein by the bloc’s leadership include addictive use, age-inappropriate design, and a lack of transparency, as mandated by the DSA. Those are broader critiques, and they hint at something bigger than a single listing or claim. They point to how platforms are built—how they nudge, how they design, how they quietly steer behavior. Anyone who’s ever lost an hour to infinite scroll knows exactly what that means.

“The DSA does not set any legal deadline for bringing formal proceedings to an end,” notes the EU. “The duration of an in-depth investigation depends on several factors, including the complexity of the case, the extent to which the company concerned cooperates with the Commission, and the exercise of the rights of defense.”

In other words: this could take a while.

And in that space—between allegation and outcome—something bigger hangs in the air. Not just the future of one platform, but the question of how far governments are willing to go to police the digital storefronts we wander through every day.

Because once regulators start treating online marketplaces exactly like physical ones, there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle.

In a country where it seems like lawsuits get filed at the drop of a hat – particularly if the hat is quite hard, quite heavy and falls on someone’s toes, causing both physical injury and extreme emotional distress – the fact that our courts do make plaintiffs jump through at least a minimal set of hoops can be something of a comfort.

For example, if I get into a fender bender with someone in California, but that person lives in New York, they probably can’t haul me into court in New York to make me face a lawsuit there, simply because New York happens to be the plaintiff’s state of domicile. They’d likely have to sue me in California, due to the way the courts handle the question of personal jurisdiction.

As you may have heard, a district court in Kansas applied this logic in dismissing a couple lawsuits filed against companies that operate adult websites, because a plaintiff there alleged those sites are not complying with the state’s age verification requirements for adult sites.

Among other things, judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter, wrote in her decision dismissing a lawsuit against Titan Websites that “merely intending that users accessing its content be able to do so from a wide geographic area is not the same as purposefully directing one’s activities at a forum.”

“Technical steps taken to make a universally accessible website easier for all users to access no matter where they are located is no more purposeful direction than the act of setting up the website in the first place,” Teeter added. “And just like the act of setting up a website, were the indiscriminate use of a CDN or other technologies to indiscriminately facilitate content delivery enough, ‘then the defense of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that a State has geographically limited judicial power, would no longer exist.’”

Teeter also wrote that her reasoning “does not mean that a website owner’s use of a CDN is never relevant” and “does not mean that a website owner’s use of a CDN could never show purposeful direction.”

“It does mean that more is needed to determine how the CDN is used and whether the CDN is being used to target a forum or an immediate region of which the forum is a part,” Teeter wrote. “The Court need not dissect the contours to resolve this case. Here, Plaintiff simply alleges that a CDN is being used and that the CDN has servers near the forum because logically it must. Defendant responds with evidence that it uses a third-party web-hosting service and that it does not know or care where the CDNs are located. This record is not enough to carry Plaintiff’s admittedly light burden.”

This dismissal of this case, as well as Teeter’s decision dismissing an identical case against a company called ICF Technology, is certainly good news for other adult businesses that might find themselves hailed into court over alleged violations of a state’s age verification law. They are not, of course, the end of the story.

The plaintiff is likely to appeal these decisions, whereupon the matter will go to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m no lawyer and I don’t have much to offer in terms of a prediction as to how the Tenth Circuit might ultimately rule. I just know that I don’t have much confidence in how the next court up the chain, the U.S. Supreme Court, might rule, should they take up the question.

Having found the age verification law passed in Texas to be constitutional, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if SCOTUS decided that merely being accessible in a state creates a sufficient “minimum contact” with any given state for a court there to assert personal jurisdiction.

Still, at least for the time being, Teeter’s decisions represent something of a victory for the porn side of the War on Porn. Whether that victory is lasting or ephemeral remains to be seen. Fingers crossed.

The war on porn doesn’t look like a war anymore. It looks like a line item on a tax form.

As age-verification laws keep tightening their grip on the adult industry — and, quietly, on the broader idea of free speech online — an Utah lawmaker has proposed something new. Or maybe not new. Just sharper. A bill introduced last month would slap a tax on porn sites operating in the state.

Introduced by state senator Calvin Musselman, a Republican, the bill would impose a 7 percent tax on total receipts “from sales, distributions, memberships, subscriptions, performances, and content amounting to material harmful to minors that is produced, sold, filmed, generated, or otherwise based” in Utah. If passed, the bill would go into effect in May and would also require adult sites to pay a $500 annual fee to the State Tax Commission. Per the legislation, the money made from the tax will be used by Utah’s Department of Health and Human Services to provide more mental health support for teens.

Musselman did not respond to a request for comment.

There’s a certain rhythm to this moment in American politics. Conservative lawmakers across the country are circling adult content with renewed intensity. In September, Alabama became the first state to impose a porn tax on adult entertainment companies (10 percent) after passing age-verification mandates requiring users to upload ID before viewing explicit material. Pennsylvania lawmakers are weighing a bill that would add a 10 percent tax on “subscriptions to and one-time purchases from online adult content platforms,” even though digital products are already subject to a 6 percent sales tax, two state senators wrote in a memo in October. Arizona floated a similar idea back in 2019, when state senator Gail Griffin proposed taxing adult content distributors to help fund the border wall during Donald Trump’s first term. Meanwhile, 25 states have passed some form of age verification.

It’s not just about taxes. For years, efforts to criminalize or restrict sex work have ebbed and flowed, usually intensifying during moments of heightened online surveillance and censorship. But targeted taxes have struggled to gain widespread traction. Why? Because their legality is murky at best.

“This kind of porn tax is blatantly unconstitutional,” says Evelyn Douek, an associate professor of law at Stanford Law School. “It singles out a particular type of protected speech for disfavored treatment, purely because the legislature doesn’t like it—that’s exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect against. Utah may not like porn, but as the Supreme Court affirmed only last year, adults have a fully protected right to access it.”

Utah, Alabama, and Pennsylvania are among 16 states that have adopted resolutions declaring porn a public health crisis. “We realize this is a bold assertion not everyone will agree on, but it’s the full-fledged truth,” Utah governor Gary Herbert tweeted in 2016 after signing the resolution. Utah’s long-running campaign against explicit material stretches back decades. In 2001, it became the first state to appoint an obscenity and pornography complaints ombudsman — a position colloquially known as the “porn czar.” That role was eliminated in 2017.

The industry, for its part, has been trying to keep up with the shifting rules. “Age restriction is a very complex subject that brings with it data privacy concerns and the potential for uneven and inconsistent application for different digital platforms,” Alex Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Pornhub, said in a previous interview. In November, the company urged Google, Microsoft, and Apple to implement device-based age verification across their operating systems and app stores. “We have seen several states and countries try to impose platform-level age verification requirements, and they have all failed to adequately protect children.” To comply with new age gate mandates, Pornhub has blocked access in 23 states.

Critics argue that these policies were never truly about protecting children in the first place. In 2024, a video leaked by the Centre for Climate Reporting showed Russell Vought, a Trump ally and Project 2025 coauthor, describing age verification laws as a “back door” to a federal porn ban.

There’s a strange irony here. Platforms like OnlyFans and Pornhub helped mainstream digital sex work, bringing it out of the shadows and into subscription dashboards and creator analytics. But that visibility has made it easier to regulate, track, and now tax. As more states experiment with tariffs tied specifically to sexual content, creators — not lawmakers — are likely to feel the immediate impact.

The skewed ideology of cultural conservatism that is taking shape under Trump 2.0 wants to punish sexual expression, says Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry in the US. “When we talk about free speech, we generally mean the freedom to speak, the ability to speak freely without government interference. But in this case, free also means not having to pay for the right to do so. A government tax on speech limits that right to those who can afford it.”

OnlyFans states that it complies with tax requirements in the jurisdictions where it operates, and creators are responsible for managing their own tax affairs. Pornhub, which is currently blocked in Utah and Alabama, did not respond to a request for comment.

Douek notes that while the Supreme Court recently upheld age-verification laws in Texas — allowing states to regulate minors’ access to explicit material — “a porn tax does nothing to limit minors’ access to this speech—it simply makes it more expensive to provide this content to adults.” A 2022 report from Common Sense Media found that 73 percent of teens aged 13 to 17 have watched adult content online. Young people often encounter explicit material on social media platforms such as X and Snap, sometimes intentionally, often accidentally. A survey last year from the UK’s Office of the Children’s Commissioner reported that 59 percent of minors are exposed to porn unintentionally, primarily via social media, up from 38 percent the year before.

In Alabama, as in Utah’s proposal, tax revenue is earmarked for behavioral health services, including prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for young people.

Alabama state representative Ben Robbins, the bill’s Republican sponsor, said in an interview last year that adult content was “a driver in causing mental health issues” in the state. It’s an argument that surfaces again and again in debates about a nationwide porn ban. Some research suggests adolescent exposure may correlate with depression, lower self-esteem, or normalization of violence, but health professionals have not reached consensus.

With lawmakers reframing the conversation around underage harm, Stabile argues that the principle at stake is bigger than porn itself. Content-specific taxes on speech, he notes, have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional censorship.

“What if a state decided that Covid misinformation was straining state health resources and taxed newsletters who promoted it? What if the federal government decided to require a costly license to start a podcast? What if a state decided to tax a certain newspaper it didn’t like?” he says. “Porn isn’t some magical category of speech separate from movies, streaming services, or other forms of entertainment. Adult businesses already pay taxes on the income they earn, just as every other business does. Taxing them because of imagined harms is not only dangerous to our industry, it sets a dangerous precedent for government power.”

And that’s the quiet part that lingers.

When governments start deciding which kinds of speech deserve a surcharge, the debate stops being about porn. It becomes about who gets to speak freely — and who has to pay extra for the privilege.

It’s the kind of enforcement story that lands with a thud, not a gasp. No surprise raid. No dramatic shutdown. Just a regulator, a spreadsheet, and a very large number at the bottom of the page.

Kick Online Entertainment S.A., the parent company of the controversial adult tube site Motherless.com, has been fined by the U.K.’s digital regulator Ofcom for failing to comply with age-verification requirements under the country’s Online Safety Act. The penalty tops £800,000 — just shy of $1.1 million — and it’s not the only fine involved.

According to a statement issued Tuesday, Ofcom said Kick Online repeatedly failed to meet age-verification obligations despite multiple attempts by the regulator to engage with the company. Motherless.com had previously been flagged several times as noncompliant, and those warnings, it seems, went nowhere.

On top of that, Kick Online is accused of ignoring formal information requests from the regulator, triggering an additional £30,000 fine — roughly $40,876. It’s the regulatory equivalent of getting ticketed for speeding and then fined again for refusing to pull over.

“Having highly effective age checks on adult sites to protect children from pornographic content is non-negotiable. Any company that fails to meet this duty—or engage with us—can expect to face robust enforcement action, including significant fines,” said Suzanne Cater, Ofcom’s director of enforcement.

“We continue to investigate other sites under the U.K.’s age check rules and will take further action where necessary,” Cater added. Ofcom also noted that while Kick Online has made attempts to implement age checks, those measures fall short of the “highly effective” standard required under the Online Safety Act. Close doesn’t count anymore.

A significant portion of the penalties relates to noncompliance spanning July through December 2025 — months that now read less like a timeline and more like a paper trail. And as enforcement ramps up, one thing feels increasingly clear: regulators aren’t asking politely anymore.

It starts the way these things often do: quietly, procedurally, with a bill number most people will never remember — until it suddenly matters a lot. In Iowa, an age-verification proposal aimed at adult platforms and sites that host a significant amount of content deemed harmful to minors has moved one step closer to becoming law.

The measure, known as House File (HF) 2274, would require site-level age verification for both apps and websites operating in the state.

The bill is sponsored by Republican state Rep. Bill Gustoff, an attorney and conservative Christian who represents House District 40. Under HF 2274, parent companies behind adult websites, apps, and even mainstream social media platforms would be barred from operating in Iowa’s digital space unless they implement age-verification systems. It’s a wide net — intentionally so.

Platforms covered by the proposal are defined as those where at least one-third, or a “substantial portion,” of content is considered pornographic and/or harmful to minors. That wording alone leaves plenty of room for interpretation, which is usually where the real fights begin.

If the bill is signed into law, enforcement power would shift to the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, currently led by Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird. With that authority, the office could pursue injunctions and civil penalties against private companies, particularly in the adult entertainment space, for failing to comply. The penalties are designed to add up fast: each instance of non-compliance counts as a separate violation, with fines of up to $1,000 per violation, capped at $10,000 per day. Blink, and you’re underwater.

HF 2274 recently cleared a House subcommittee and is now headed to the House Judiciary Committee for further review and markup. Its chances look strong. Most Midwestern states already have some form of age-verification requirement for adult content, and momentum tends to be contagious when neighboring legislatures start moving in the same direction.

The adult industry isn’t ignoring it. Trade organization Free Speech Coalition is actively tracking the bill on behalf of its members — because for many platforms, this isn’t just another compliance box. It’s a question of whether operating at all will still make sense once the rules settle.

There’s something a little surreal about watching a modern internet dispute hinge on where a company’s legal address happens to be. One minute it’s about protecting minors, the next it’s about jurisdictional lines drawn decades ago. And suddenly, adult websites are at the center of a European legal chess match.

A German court has now blocked the Rhineland-Palatinate Media Authority from forcing telecom providers within its jurisdiction to cut off access to Aylo-owned adult sites Pornhub and YouPorn.

According to a statement released Thursday by the Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Justice, the Administrative Court of Neustadt an der Weinstraße sided with both internet access provider 1&1 and Aylo, overturning blocking orders previously issued by the media authority.

Those orders, handed down in April 2024, required DNS blocking of the sites on the grounds that they lacked sufficient age verification measures to prevent minors in Germany from accessing adult content, as mandated by the country’s Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media (JMStV). Both Aylo and 1&1 challenged the orders in court, arguing they overstepped legal boundaries.

The court’s 5th Chamber agreed, grounding its decision in two key points: the primacy of the European Union’s Digital Services Act over Germany’s JMStV, and the EU’s long-standing “country of origin” principle under the Directive on Electronic Commerce. Under that framework, online services are generally regulated only by the EU member state in which they are legally based — and Aylo is based in Cyprus.

The Ministry of Justice emphasized that since the Digital Services Act took effect in February 2024, there has been “a single, fully harmonized set of rules at EU level for the protection of minors in online media.”

“This regulation generally prohibits member states from imposing additional national requirements in areas already covered by the regulation,” the statement reads. “As the DSA already stipulates comprehensive due diligence obligations for online platforms to protect minors, it supersedes the previous German special regulations.”

It also pointed out that the European Commission has already asserted exclusive authority by launching its own proceedings against Pornhub and other platforms designated as “Very Large Online Platforms” under the DSA. In other words, Brussels is already on the case.

That likely won’t be the end of it. The Rhineland-Palatinate Media Authority is expected to appeal the ruling to the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate — especially given that this same court previously ruled against Aylo in earlier blocking disputes.

And that’s where things get messy. Different German courts have reached different conclusions, and the supposed clarity between national and EU law isn’t as airtight as this ruling might suggest.

Last September, an advocate general at the EU’s Court of Justice issued a nonbinding opinion in a separate case involving WebGroup Czech Republic, which operates XVideos.com, and NKL Associates, which operates XNXX.com. That opinion suggested France could, in fact, require pornographic websites based in other EU countries to comply with French age verification laws. Not binding, but certainly eyebrow-raising.

However the Pornhub and YouPorn litigation ultimately plays out in Germany, it’s almost guaranteed to ripple outward. This isn’t just about a couple of adult sites or a regional regulator flexing its muscles. It’s about where authority really lives in a digital Europe — and who gets the final word when national instincts collide with EU-wide rules.

The Free Speech Coalition has published its legislative outlook for 2026.

Here are some highlights:

Punitive Taxation
Utah and Virginia both introduced bills this year adding special taxes for adult content. The Virginia bill has been tabled until next year. If Utah passes its law, the state will join Alabama to become the second state to institute a content-based tax on adult speech.  

Consent Minefields
Arizona has moved rapidly on HB 2133, a new bill that would require complicated, contradictory documentation for any adult content uploaded online. As with the laws enacted in North Carolina and Alabama last year, Arizona’s bill, which requires every model release to be notarized, would make it impossible for adult businesses to operate in the state. 

VPN Restrictions
Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin have both proposed significant VPN restrictions. While Michigan’s bill would ban VPNs entirely, and is likely dead, the West Virginia and Wisconsin bills would require adult sites to identify and block all VPN traffic.

Warning Labels
Wisconsin, Washington and Missouri have all introduced bills mandating warning labels on adult content. While FSC was able to secure an on-going injunction against a similar law in Texas, our case is on-going and Alabama’s health warning requirement remains in effect.

The complete piece is located HERE

A federal judge quietly slammed the brakes this week on a pair of lawsuits that were meant to test Kansas’ age-verification law — and in doing so, reminded everyone that the internet doesn’t neatly respect state lines, no matter how badly lawmakers might want it to.

Last year, a conservative anti-pornography group brought lawsuits against four adult websites on behalf of a 14-year-old Kansas resident and her mother. Two of those suits went after Titan Websites, which runs HentaiCity.com, and ICF Technology, which operates Jerkmate.com. The core claim was simple and familiar by now: the teenager allegedly accessed content on the sites without her age being verified.

But Judge Holly Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas wasn’t persuaded. She dismissed both cases outright, pointing to something that often gets lost in the political noise — jurisdiction still matters.

In the case against Titan Websites, Teeter ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show HentaiCity.com had “purposefully directed its activities at Kansas.”

“The contacts between Defendant and the forum were not due to discriminating, intentional conduct that targeted Kansas,” Teeter wrote. “Rather, they were the random, and fortuitous contacts inherent in the operation of an indiscriminate and universally accessible website … This is insufficient to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.”

If you’ve ever run a website, that language probably lands with a thud of recognition. The internet is global by default. You don’t wake up deciding to “target Kansas” unless you’re buying billboards off I-70 or running a very specific ad campaign. Sometimes a click is just a click.

In a statement, the Free Speech Coalition welcomed the decision as a meaningful step forward.

“As the first age verification case filed by a private plaintiff to reach final resolution, the ruling suggests that private plaintiffs can lack personal jurisdiction to sue out-of-state website operators under the Kansas statute,” the statement reads.

The organization’s executive director said the ruling offers “critical guidance” for platforms trying to navigate age-verification laws in Kansas and beyond — a legal patchwork that’s getting harder to track by the month.

“While not precedent-setting, nor necessarily applicable in every case, the District Court’s ruling is an important victory against state laws enforced by private rights of action,” said Boden. “In the meantime, the threat of litigation is real, and we encourage our members to continue to comply with all applicable laws.”

That last part matters. This wasn’t a mic-drop that ends the conversation forever. The plaintiffs still have the option to appeal, and the broader legal fight is far from over.

Two other cases backed by the same group are still winding their way through the system. In the lawsuit against Multi Media LLC, which operates Chaturbate.com, the judge granted a motion to compel arbitration and paused the case while that process plays out. In the case against Techpump Solutions, which runs Superporn.com, the court hasn’t yet ruled on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

So yes, one door just closed — but plenty of others remain cracked open. And if there’s a lesson here, it’s this: the battle over age verification isn’t just about who clicks what. It’s about where the law thinks the internet actually lives.

Over the decades I’ve worked in the adult entertainment business, it has struck me many times how concerned the industry’s critics appear to be about the welfare of those of us who work in the industry – and how quickly that concern turns to consternation and scorn, should we insist that we’re doing what we do gladly and of our own free will.

“Nonsense,” the critics say, “these poor souls only think they are engaging in this depravity willingly; the truth is they have been brainwashed, coerced, cajoled and manipulated into believing they want to participate in this filth.”

Granted, not a lot of people have spilled ink along these lines to fret over the wellbeing of freelance writers like me. I think we’re counted as being among the exploiters, rather than the exploited, or perhaps as enablers of exploitation. Still, there’s no denying I derive my living, meager though it may be, from adult entertainment, even if all I do is write about it, rather than perform in or film it.

While many of the regulations aimed at the adult industry are couched as attempts to protect minors from the alleged harm of viewing pornography, when these measures are discussed by their proponents, “success” is often defined as making the adult industry retreat from their jurisdiction altogether. If a site like Pornhub blocks visitors from an entire state, including all the adults in that state who are still legally entitled to access the site even under newly established age verification mandates, those who cooked up the laws often describe this development as a sign the law is “working.” As I’ve written before, the chilling effect is a feature of these measures, not a bug.

By the same token, if a new law or regulation makes it harder for adult content creators to make their own movies, distribute their own photos or perform live on webcams, that too is something to be celebrated by the legislators and activists who champion those regulations.

Gone is all thought or discussion of the wellbeing of adult content creators and performers, once the potential cause of harm is the law itself. This holds true of purported “anti-trafficking” statutes. While sex workers themselves largely oppose measures like FOSTA/SESTA and say the law has made them less safe, not more, the proponents and sponsors of such legislation don’t want to hear it. Yes, these paternalistic politicos and crusading critics will protect these wayward adults from themselves, even if it kills them.

I can only imagine that if a state legislator from any of the dozens of states that have passed age verification requirements were to learn that adult content creators (and the platforms that host their work) are having a harder time earning a living under these new regulatory schemes, their response would be brief and callous: “Good,” they’d probably say, “now they can go out and look for more respectable work!”

And what happens when former porn performers do find work in other fields? The stigma of porn follows them. They get fired. They are told their mere presence in a classroom is disruptive. They are hounded on social media. They are treated like pariahs by the very people who supposedly care about their welfare.

A law or regulation can be well-intended and still do harm. I don’t doubt some of the politicians involved in crafting age-verification laws and other purportedly protective regulations believe they are doing things in the best interests of both minors and the adults who work in porn, or in the broader world of sex work. But it’s hard to believe they truly care about the latter two when there’s so little thought given to the potential negative impact on them during the crafting of these laws.

As more states toy with the idea of establishing a “porn tax,” will any of them pause to consider the impact on the human beings targeted by such taxes? I’d strongly advise not trying to hold your breath while waiting for that manner of concern to be expressed.