Editor's note: The IAPP is policy neutral. We publish contributed opinion and analysis pieces to enable our members to hear a broad spectrum of views in our domains.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton sent ripples through the digital landscape, reshaping thoughts about age verification, free speech and implications for privacy. The 27 June 6-3 ruling upheld a Texas law that requires websites with significant adult content to verify users' ages before granting access. While the decision aims to protect minors from explicit material, it raises profound questions about the privacy risks tied to collecting sensitive personal information on some of the internet's most intimate and adult-related sites.
For privacy professionals, the ruling isn't just about adult websites and requesting identification to grant visitors' access. It's a wake-up call about the delicate balance between regulatory compliance and safeguarding user data in an era where breaches spread like wildfire and the dark web can have not only your ID but the explicit websites you visited. Will this also include search history, IP addresses, liked or disliked videos? If proper security controls are not put in place, this could get scary very fast.
Known as HB 1181, the Texas law mandates websites with at least one-third of content deemed "sexual material harmful to minors" implement age verification systems. This isn't the casual "click to confirm you're 18+" checkbox of yesteryear. The law requires robust methods, often involving government-issued identification, third-party verification platforms or even biometric data like facial recognition scans.
In an opinion penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court argued such measures only "incidentally" burden adults' free speech rights, likening them to showing an ID at a liquor store. But as privacy advocates point out, handing over a driver's license to buy a bottle of wine doesn't carry the same stakes as linking one's identity to browsing habits that could be permanently stored.
The ruling's privacy implications are hard to overstate. Adult websites, by nature, handle some of the most sensitive data imaginable — information about users' sexual preferences, viewing habits and personal proclivities. Requiring users to submit government-issued IDs or other identifying information to access these sites creates a treasure trove of data that otherwise wouldn't be collected.
The ruling also raises questions about who can access these sites at all. Not every adult has a government-issued ID, and some may be reluctant to share personal information due to privacy concerns or fear of exposure.
This decision doesn't exist in a vacuum. At least 18 states have already enacted similar age verification laws; more are likely to follow now that the Supreme Court has given its approval. The ripple effects could extend beyond adult websites to other platforms, like social media, where lawmakers are increasingly pushing for age-based restrictions.
The challenge is daunting: how do you verify age without creating a digital footprint that could haunt users if exposed?
One potential path forward lies in privacy-preserving technologies. Anonymous age verification systems, which use cryptographic techniques to confirm a user's age without storing identifiable information, are gaining traction. These systems could allow websites to comply with laws like HB 1181 while reducing the risk of breaches. However, these systems are not foolproof. Technology is still evolving, and not all providers have the expertise or incentive to implement them effectively.
For privacy professionals, the ruling underscores the need for robust data minimization strategies. Websites subject to age verification laws must only collect the data necessary to comply and retain it for the shortest time possible. Strong encryption, regular security audits and transparent data handling policies are nonnegotiable.
Yet, as the adult industry faces increasing regulatory pressure, smaller players may struggle to keep up. Major platforms like Pornhub have already left states with age verification laws, citing compliance costs and privacy concerns. This could drive users to less regulated, inadequately secured sites, paradoxically increasing the risk of exposure to harmful content, malware or deceptive patterns from nefarious actors.
The broader implications for the internet are equally concerning. The Supreme Court's decision could set a precedent for age-gating other types of content, from social media to health information. If states can require ID checks for adult websites, what's to stop them from mandating similar measures for platforms hosting controversial political speech or reproductive health resources?
Law professor Jess Miers told The Washington Post the ruling "green-lights censorship tools" that may have a broader deterrent effect on online speech. Privacy professionals will need to advocate for clear boundaries to ensure age verification doesn't become a backdoor for government surveillance or content control.
Privacy pros have a critical role to play in navigating this new terrain. Organizations must balance compliance with ethical data stewardship, ensuring user trust isn't sacrificed in the name of regulatory compliance. This means advocating for privacy-by-design principles, pushing for stronger data protection laws and educating users about the risks of sharing personal information.
It also means staying vigilant about how these laws are implemented and enforced. The Texas law, for example, imposes hefty fines for non-compliance with numbers greater than typical for non-privacy compliance regulatory actions. Texas is fining up to USD10,000 per day, plus USD250,000 per minor access. Such penalties could pressure companies to over-collect data to avoid liability, further amplifying privacy risks.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a landmark moment for the internet, but it's not the end of the story. As more states adopt age verification laws, the privacy community must grapple with the fallout. How do we protect users from breaches while complying with evolving regulations? How do we ensure the internet remains a space for free expression without becoming a minefield of personal data leaks?
These questions will define the next chapter of digital privacy; the answers will require collaboration, innovation and a steadfast commitment to user rights. For now, the Supreme Court has spoken, but the conversation about privacy in the era of age-gating is just beginning.
Richart Ruddie is the founder of Captain Compliance.
