Fact check: What are the legal requirements for pornography production in the United States?

1. New state laws are forcing websites to choose between compliance, blocking, or litigation — and platforms are reacting

Missouri and Arizona enacted age-verification schemes in September 2025 that require pornographic websites to implement systems preventing minors from accessing explicit material, with civil penalties and injunctive relief available against non‑compliant publishers. Platforms such as Aylo, the owner of Pornhub, publicly signaled they may block entire states rather than meet verification rules they call ineffective or dangerous, framing compliance as a threat to user safety and service viability. These developments show a direct confrontation between state regulatory power and internet platforms, with litigation already active in related trafficking cases that complicate corporate responses ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. Proposed Michigan legislation would go further — potentially criminalizing platforms and VPN use

Michigan lawmakers introduced an expansive bill described as banning broad categories of sexual internet content — not only conventional pornography, but also ASMR, AI-generated images, and other material — with proposed penalties up to 20 years in prison and half‑million dollar fines, and expectations that ISPs block content and prohibit VPN circumvention. The bill’s scope prompted alarm from privacy and civil‑rights advocates who warn such measures could normalize surveillance, restrict legitimate expression, and reshape ISP and VPN responsibilities. This marks a shift from targeted age checks to sweeping content prohibition and network controls ^{[4] [6] [7]}.

3. Advocates and platforms emphasize privacy and safety risks from mandatory digital ID systems

Reports highlight concerns that commercial age‑verification or digital‑ID systems carry significant privacy risks, including centralized databases of sexual browsing and vulnerabilities to data breaches, identity theft, and surveillance. UK experience under its Online Safety Act is cited as a cautionary international comparison where age verification raised technical and privacy issues and led to calls for robust safeguards and alternatives. Opponents argue that even well‑intentioned verification can be circumvented by VPNs or drive users to unsafe channels, while proponents insist checks are necessary to protect minors ^{[3] [1] [8]}.

4. Enforcement design matters: civil fines, private lawsuits, and criminal exposure create divergent incentives

The statutes create mixed enforcement regimes: Missouri and Arizona impose civil penalties and allow injunctive relief or private enforcement (including high per‑day penalties in Arizona), whereas Michigan’s proposed framework contemplates criminal sanctions and ISP obligations. The presence of private‑party enforcement with large financial exposure incentivizes over‑compliance and preemptive blocking by platforms, while criminal penalties risk chilling lawful adult expression and complicating ISP liability standards. These differences show lawmakers are still contesting the right mix of deterrence, redress, and constitutional guardrails ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

5. Platforms and litigants are using broader legal strategies that intersect trafficking and regulatory defenses

Aylo’s request to stay a civil trafficking suit because of concurrent criminal proceedings involving executives illustrates how platforms and plaintiffs are entangled across civil and criminal tracks, affecting the timing and posture of litigation. Companies facing both regulatory compliance demands and litigation risks may choose to block access, litigate constitutional claims, or reconfigure services. This legal layering signals that outcomes will depend as much on courts and prosecutorial decisions as on statutory design, and that high‑stakes trafficking allegations will shape enforcement and industry behavior ^[5].

6. Policymakers’ aims clash with technical realities and user behavior — circumvention and unintended harms loom large

Reports of VPN circumvention, technical limits of commercial age checks, and the possibility that restrictive laws push users toward less secure platforms underpin a central trade‑off: protecting minors vs. preserving adult privacy and free expression. Evidence from several September 2025 articles shows policymakers in multiple states are pursuing similar laws, but critics point out that without secure, privacy‑preserving verification and clear constitutional boundaries, regulations may prove ineffective or counterproductive, sparking a broader debate on digital identity, ISP obligations, and cross‑jurisdictional enforcement ^{[8] [2] [7]}.

7. What’s next: litigation, model legislation, and technical standards will determine practical outcomes

The immediate path forward includes court challenges, possible federal preemption questions, and further state proposals refining age‑verification mechanisms or expanding bans. Key flashpoints will be constitutional First Amendment claims, privacy and data‑protection standards for verification technologies, ISP and VPN liability, and how trafficking litigation intersects with regulatory defenses. Stakeholders — platforms, civil‑liberties groups, state attorneys, and Congress — will shape whether these state laws become durable models or are curtailed by courts and political pushback ^{[1] [5] [6]}.