On 31 July 2026, Pornhub’s parent company Aylo sent letters to more than 300 state officials across the US — including Ohio governor Mike DeWine and attorney general Dave Yost — arguing that state age-verification laws for adult websites “demonstrably do not work.” It’s a striking move, but not a surprising one: Aylo has spent the past year testing exactly how far a drafting quirk in state law can be stretched, and in Ohio that quirk has a name creators will recognise from a very different fight — Section 230.
The loophole: an “interactive computer service” exemption
Ohio’s age-verification law for sites hosting content “obscene or harmful to juveniles” took effect in September 2025, requiring photo ID or comparable checks before granting access. But the law exempts “interactive computer service” providers — language lifted almost directly from the federal Section 230 liability shield that protects platforms from being treated as the publisher of content their users post.
Aylo has leaned on that exemption directly. In its correspondence to Ohio officials, the company stated it is “not subject to the obligations” of the law because it qualifies as an interactive computer service. An Ohio Attorney General review reportedly found that, as of October 2025, only one of the twenty most-visited adult sites in the state was actually verifying users’ ages — a compliance rate that has made the loophole impossible for lawmakers to ignore.
Ohio’s proposed fix: $100,000 per violation
State Rep. Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge) is now advancing amendments intended to close the gap, reportedly attaching civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation for non-compliant sites. The strategy is modelled on Texas, where the threat of steep, enforceable fines led Aylo to geoblock the state entirely rather than build out verification — a very different outcome to Ohio, where Pornhub has stayed online and unverified.
Demetriou has acknowledged the limits of a state-level fix for what is, at root, a federal drafting problem: “There are a number of issues that we’d love to continue to work with our federal partners on.” Ohio is one of at least four states (alongside Missouri, Arizona and North Dakota) still finalising implementation details on this kind of legislation, and by mid-August 2026 a total of 27 US states had enacted some form of adult-site age-verification law.
Why this loophole doesn’t help OnlyFans creators
It’s worth being precise about who this actually affects. The interactive-computer-service argument is built for tube sites hosting freely-viewable, un-gated video — it’s a much harder argument to make for a subscription platform that already gates access behind sign-up, payment and, increasingly, identity checks. OnlyFans has spent the past two years building out age and identity verification specifically to satisfy regimes like the UK’s Online Safety Act, as Ofcom’s own reporting on age-assurance checks has tracked in detail. A platform that already verifies has little incentive, legally or reputationally, to start arguing it shouldn’t have to.
That’s arguably the more useful story for creators here: every month tube sites spend exploiting this exemption is a month platforms with mandatory verification — OnlyFans included — look comparatively more compliant to regulators, payment processors and banks who are all watching this space closely. The federal picture is moving in parallel too; proposals like the SCREEN Act would apply verification obligations nationally rather than state by state, which would ultimately flatten out patchwork exemptions like Ohio’s altogether.
What to watch
- Whether Demetriou’s amendment passes the Ohio legislature, and in what form — the $100,000 figure could change before any final vote.
- Whether Aylo’s lobbying campaign to the 300+ officials shifts any state away from verification requirements, or hardens support for them.
- Whether other states with similar “interactive computer service” language quietly copy Ohio’s fix once it’s tested.
- Any federal movement on the SCREEN Act or comparable legislation that would override the state-by-state patchwork entirely.
This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Platforms and creators with specific compliance questions should consult a qualified attorney familiar with age-verification and online safety law in the relevant jurisdiction.
