TALLAHASEE, Fla.—Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced Tuesday that he is suing the parent companies of several adult entertainment sites, including the firms that own tube sites XVideos and XNXX.
Uthmeier, a far-right Republican, alleges that those he is suing violated age verification rules that specifically target adult entertainment content on the internet.
The state lawsuit comes in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision to uphold an age verification law in Texas that is similar to the Florida measure. That case is Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton.
The law they allegedly violate is House Bill (HB) 3, which is the state of Florida's sweeping age verification law that also has prohibitions on minors using social media platforms at a certain age.
“Multiple porn companies are flagrantly breaking Florida’s age verification law by exposing children to harmful, explicit content,” explained Uthmeier in a press release announcing the lawsuit. “We are taking legal action against these online pornographers who are willfully preying on the innocence of children for their financial gain.”
Targeted in the lawsuit are WebGroup Czech Republic (XVideos); NKL Associates (XNXX); the parent company of BangBros.com, Sonesta; the group of companies that manage the remnants of GirlsGoneWild; and ad network Traffic Factory.
“These are the types of cases we warned about in the wake of the Paxton decision, and we’re likely to see more of them,” said Mike Stabile, director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, in an email. “Whether Florida’s Attorney General can force foreign entities to comply with state laws in the [United States] remains to be seen, but the threat remains. We’re reviewing the complaint now to provide guidance to our members for protecting themselves and their business.”
Uthmeier is also suing these companies for violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). He asserts, applying FDUTPA, that the defendants engaged in some form of deceptive trade practices.
The same press release says that the defendants engaged in “unfair and deceptive business practices that the companies have used to build a vast and lucrative Florida user base that includes vulnerable children and teens.”
He doesn't offer any evidence to support this claim. Under House Bill 3’s enforcement, a judge can award the state attorney general potentially millions of dollars in restitution and fines.
“Florida made it clear that they were going to aggressively pursue website operators that are not in compliance with Florida’s age verification law,” adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein explained in an email to AVN.
“This should be used as a reminder to all website operators that states with similar age verification laws are eager to move forward with enforcement actions and they should be consulting with legal counsel to ensure that they are in compliance,” he warned.
Similarly, attorney Allan Gelbard said that he views this ongoing litigation as a part of the wider anti-pornography agenda that is gaining more steam.
“As I’ve previously stated, each of the deep red states are now going to performatively ramp up their anti-porn (and broader Christian nationalist) agendas because they believe it's popular with their base,” Gelbard, who also represents adult industry clients, lamented. “The only potentially hopeful sign I see here is that when all these sites start geofencing, the millions of citizens who enjoy erotic expression are going to wake up and see that their rights are being violated."
Larry Walters, another adult industry attorney who actually practices law in Florida, provided AVN a local perspective.
“We expect [attorneys general] in other states to similarly pursue enforcement actions in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling in the Paxton case,” Walters told AVN. “The courts will likely be called upon to determine the constitutionality of each state’s law, under the test set forth by SCOTUS.”
If that proves true, all individual age verification laws are likely to receive varying constitutional interpretations. For example, Florida’s law has a unique provision that allows users to have their ages verified by third-party providers based in the United States.
“SCOTUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of this unique burden on access to protected speech,” he added. “Further, some of these companies may have personal jurisdiction defenses to the claims given their foreign locations.”
Walters refers to the likely challenge of Uthmeier and his office to prove that they have the authority to sue companies that are primarily based in the Czech Republic. Cases can be dismissed for a lack of personal jurisdiction.
