Our industry has grappled with a patchwork of confusing and burdensome state age verification laws for the past couple of years. But that landscape could change quickly after the House passed the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act (H.R. 7757) by a vote of 267-117, marking a significant federal step into this space.
While the bill bundles multiple child safety measures, including elements of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), privacy protections and rules for AI chatbots and gaming, the most direct impact on adult websites comes from Title I, the "Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act" (SCREEN Act).
For the adult industry, Senate negotiations could produce stronger data protections, clearer verification standards or changes to enforcement. Until Congress reaches an agreement, however, platforms must continue navigating the existing patchwork of state laws.
What the House SCREEN Act Requires of Adult Websites
The bill targets "covered platforms": publicly accessible websites or online platforms where more than one-third of the material is "sexual material harmful to minors," a definition drawing from obscenity standards tailored for minors, including prurient-interest depictions lacking serious value for them, or child pornography. Operators who knowingly make such material available must comply.
Beginning one year after enactment, assuming the bill becomes law, providers must:
- Adopt and utilize commercially available "technology verification measures" to determine whether a user is more likely than not a minor.
- Prevent identified minors from accessing sexual material harmful to minors.
- Ensure self-attestation, such as clicking "I am 18+," is not used as the sole method of verification.
- Provide clear notice about verification processes and data handling.
- Take reasonable measures against circumvention.
- Limit the collection, use, retention and disclosure of verification data to what is strictly necessary, with strong security practices.
Importantly, the bill does not mandate government-issued ID submission, and operators can choose methods or contract with third parties to provide age verification services, though operators remain liable. Enforcement falls primarily to the FTC as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, and state attorneys general can bring civil actions against noncompliant operators.
Operational Impacts on Adult Websites
For adult platforms, especially tube sites, aggregators and major content hosts, nationwide age verification could create significant challenges:
- Technical and Cost Challenges: Reliable age verification at scale can be expensive and complex, often requiring third-party services that use biometrics, facial estimation, device data or other methods. Although competition is driving costs down, implementation could still price out smaller operators.
- User Experience and Traffic: Privacy-conscious adults may abandon sites that require scans or data sharing, reducing traffic, advertising revenue and subscriptions. Platforms would also need ongoing measures to address circumvention through VPNs and proxies.
- Data Privacy and Security Risks: Collecting verification information creates potential hacking targets and increases liability. Breaches could trigger FTC scrutiny or lawsuits, while international operators would face additional complications involving cross-border data flows.
- Liability Exposure: Operators remain liable when using third-party AV providers. The requirement to take "reasonable measures" against circumvention is also vague and could invite enforcement actions if minors gain access.
- Broader Industry Effects: Platforms might overblock or change their content policies to remain below the "more than one-third" threshold, potentially chilling constitutionally protected adult speech.
The Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton upheld Texas' similar age verification requirement under intermediate scrutiny as an incidental burden on adult speech intended to protect minors, providing constitutional breathing room for these mandates. However, federal implementation raises new questions about uniformity and enforcement.
Preemption of State Age Verification Laws: A Double-Edged Sword?
One of the most critical aspects for the adult industry is the bill's approach to state laws. The KIDS Act aims to establish a national standard for covered platforms, enforced by the FTC.
The bill generally appears to employ conflicts-based preemption, displacing state laws that conflict with the federal framework while allowing states to enact stronger protections in some areas. The result could be the worst of both worlds: Age verification would be required nationwide, while some states could continue enforcing stricter laws, including criminal prohibitions or reverification requirements.
A federal floor could provide greater consistency, establish baseline privacy protections and reduce the burden of navigating differing state laws. However, states could still enact harsher requirements, pursue overlapping enforcement actions or scrutinize platforms that fall outside the federal definition of a covered platform. Other state consumer protection, tort and contract laws may also remain applicable.
Another significant question is how the bill's one-year compliance period would affect existing state laws. Depending on the final preemption language and how courts interpret it, the industry could receive a year of relief from conflicting state requirements before the federal obligations take effect. However, relying on that possibility would be risky, because state attorneys general could argue that their existing laws are stronger and remain enforceable throughout that period.
Preemption may therefore provide some relief from the fragmented state-by-state landscape, but it would not necessarily eliminate overlapping requirements or enforcement. It would also shift greater authority to federal regulators, whose priorities can change with presidential administrations.
Headwinds in the Senate
Despite its bipartisan passage in the House, the KIDS Act faces an uncertain path in the Senate, which is advancing its own approach to children's online safety.
On Aug. 5, the Senate Commerce Committee advanced the Kids Online Safety Act (S. 1748) by voice vote. The committee also voted 15-13 in favor of its standalone SCREEN Act (S. 737), though a revote is required because too few senators were physically present to satisfy Senate procedural rules.
The Senate proposals differ from the House package in important ways. Most notably, the Senate version of KOSA retains a "duty of care" requirement that would impose broader obligations on platforms to mitigate harms to minors. The Senate SCREEN Act could also apply more broadly than the House version, reaching commercial services that make qualifying material available without requiring it to account for more than one-third of their content.
The extent of federal preemption remains another point of contention, particularly as Senate leaders seek to preserve states' ability to enact stronger child protection and AI laws. Free speech concerns, industry lobbying and competing legislative priorities further complicate the path toward reconciling the two chambers' approaches.
For the adult industry, Senate negotiations could produce stronger data protections, clearer verification standards or changes to enforcement. Until Congress reaches an agreement, however, platforms must continue navigating the existing patchwork of state laws.
Looking Ahead
The KIDS Act is now before the Senate Commerce Committee, where its fate remains uncertain amid competing legislative proposals and ongoing debates over free speech, privacy and efficacy. Critics from digital rights groups warn of overreach, surveillance risks and limited real-world effectiveness against determined minors, while supporters hail it as essential protection. As always, the adult industry is caught in the middle.
Adult website operators should begin auditing their content ratios, exploring compliant verification partners and modeling costs for potential nationwide compliance. They should also consult counsel to prepare for the one-year compliance window if the bill advances. Proactive steps, such as enhanced self-regulatory tools or user education, can mitigate risks.
Protecting children online is a shared goal, but mandates must be narrowly tailored, effective and respectful of adults' rights. A uniform federal approach may be preferable to chaos, yet the devil remains in implementation, enforcement and unintended consequences for lawful expression. The industry must remain vigilant as this legislation evolves.
Lawrence Walters heads Walters Law Group, which has represented the adult industry for over 35 years. Nothing in this article is intended as legal advice. Walters can be reached through the firm's website, www.firstamendment.com, or on social media @walterslawgroup.
