Free Speech Coalition, alongside co-plaintiffs working in the sex education, adult content, sexual wellness, and legal fields, has filed a legal challenge in Florida against the state’s age-verification mandate, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2025.

Different provisions of the same law, requiring age-verification for social media access, have already been challenged by other litigants. Read more »

Case Status: On Hold

Law Status: In Effect

Key Points

• HB3 empowers the Florida attorney general’s office to bring civil claims of up to $50,000 per violation against websites with “material harmful to minors” if they do not require visitors to upload a government ID, scan their face, or otherwise verify their age and identity.
• The law violates the First and Fourth Amendments to and Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights thereunder.

Court Filings

• Read the Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 16, 2024.
• FSC filed a motion for preliminary injunction on January 6, 2025.

Free Speech Coalition and a group of adult platforms have filed a legal challenge in Indiana over the state’s age-verification law, SB17, arguing that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SB17 empowers the state attorney general to file civil suits against platforms with adult content if they do not require visitors to upload a government ID and scan their face, or otherwise verify their age and identity. In addition to challenging the merits of the law, the Free Speech Coalition and its co-plaintiffs have requested an expedited preliminary injunction in the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana. Read more »

Case Status: On Hold

Law Status: In Effect

Key Points

• The law provides that the Attorney General may bring an action to obtain an injunction against a website and impose a civil penalty of up to $250,000.
• It also creates a private cause of action to permit the parent or guardian of a child harmed by a violation of the age verification requirement or any other person to bring an action against a website.
• The law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to a specific type of constitutionally-protected expression in the most restrictive, yet least effective way.
• The law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to a specific type of constitutionally-protected expression in the most restrictive, yet least effective way.

Court Filings

• Read the Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on June 10, 2024.
• Along with the Complaint, FSC filed a motion for preliminary injunction to keep the law from going into effect as scheduled on July 1, 2024.
  • Indiana opposed our request for a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2024.
  • We filed our response to Indiana’s opposition brief on June 26, 2024.
  • The District Court denied the Attorney General’s request to put the law into effect while it appeals the preliminary injunction ruling on July 25, 2024.
• FSC filed a motion to stay the proceedings until a decision by the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton on October 21, 2024.
  • Indiana opposed a stay
  • The judge granted the stay on November 27, 2024

Free Speech Coalition filed a legal challenge in Louisiana over the state’s unconstitutional age-verification law on June 20th, 2023. The Louisiana law gives the state the power to fine sites with adult content up to $5,000 per day, a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Joining Free Speech Coalition in filing the challenge are Elizabeth Hanson, a military veteran and spouse of an active-duty Coast Guard member residing in Slidell; Andrea Barrica, founder of the sex education site O.school; journalist, educator, and content creator Charyn “Ryn” Pfeuffer; and fan platform JustFor.Fans. Read more »

Case Status: On Hold

Law Status: In Effect

Court Filings

• Read the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 20, 2023.
  • Louisiana’s response, filed on October 8, 2023
• Louisiana’s motion to dismiss, filed July 10, 2023
  • Judge Morgan’s order, filed October 4, 2023
  • FSC’s notice of appeal, filed November 6, 2023
  • Order granting FSC’s motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice, filed April 11, 2024
• FSC filed a motion to withdraw our motion for preliminary injunction and hold the case in abeyance on March 28, 2024, which Judge Morgan granted.

Free Speech Coalition filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Attorney General of Montana, over the state’s age-verification law, SB544, in the US District Court of Montana. FSC and the other plaintiffs, including journalists, sex educators, therapists, book publishers, sexual wellness retailers are asking a district court to block enforcement of the law pending resolution of the case. Read more »

Case Status: In Progress

Law Status: In Effect

Key Points

• The law creates a private cause of action to sue a website that does not “perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the material.”.
• The law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to a specific type of constitutionally-protected expression in the most restrictive, yet least effective way.

Court Filings

• Read the Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Montana on May 14, 2024.
  • Montana filed their answer on November 4, 2024
• On June 24, 2024, Montana filed a motion to dismiss our case and accompanying brief.
  • We filed our opposition to the case being dismissed on July 15, 2024.
  • Montana filed their reply to our opposition on July 29, 2024.
  • Judge Molloy’s order denying the Motion to Dismiss on October 22, 2024.
• Pretrial statements, stipulated facts, and a joint discovery plan were filed on January 16, 2025
  • Montana’s preliminary pretrial statement
  • FSC’s preliminary pretrial statement
  • Joint discovery plan
  • Joint statement of stipulated facts

Free Speech Coalition, along with a diverse range of co-plaintiffs, has filed a legal challenge in Tennessee over the state’s age-verification law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SB1792 empowers the state attorney general to bring felony criminal charges against websites with “material harmful to minors” if they do not require visitors to upload a government ID, scan their face, or otherwise verify their age and identity. Joining FSC in the challenge are a host of others harmed by the law, including individuals and companies working in sex education, journalism and sexual wellness, as well as adult content creation and distribution. Read more »

Case Status: In Progress

Law Status: In Effect

Key Points

• The law creates liability “for damages resulting from a minor’s accessing the content harmful to minors, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees”, in addition to criminal liability to the State, as violations constitute a Class C felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
• The law violates the First and Fourth Amendments to, and Supremacy Clause of, the United States Constitution, because it impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights thereunder.

Court Filings

• Read the complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and supporting memorandum, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on November 26, 2024.
  • Tennessee filed their response on December 15, 2024.
  • The judge granted the injunction on December 30, 2024. The state requested the judge stay her decision while they appealed it. She did not.

Free Speech Coalition, the advocacy organization for the adult industry, has filed a legal challenge in Texas over the state’s unconstitutional age-verification law. As with laws FSC has challenged laws in Louisiana and Utah, Texas forces consumers to provide identification information to access adult content. In addition, the Texas law requires that adult sites carry pseudoscientific “warning labels.” Read More »

Case Status: In Progress

Law Status: In Effect

Key Points

• The law provides that the Attorney General may bring an action to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance.
• Websites are required to display pseudoscientific “health” warnings to consumers on their “landing page”, footer, and all advertisements “in 14-point font or larger”.
• The law violates the First Amendment rights of creators and consumers, has a chilling effect on constitutionally-protected speech and compels speech in the form of health warnings.

Court Filings

• Read the Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, on August 4, 2023.
• Along with the Complaint, FSC filed a motion for preliminary injunction to keep the law from going into effect as scheduled on September 1, 2023.
  • Texas opposed our request for a preliminary injunction on August 21, 2023.
  • We filed our response to the Texas opposition brief on August 21, 2023.
  • The District Court granted a preliminary injunction on August 31, 2023, blocking the law from taking effect.
  • Texas filed notice that it would appeal the District Court’s decision on August 31, 2023.
• Texas filed a motion to dismiss our case on October 11, 2023.
  • We opposed the state’s motion to dismiss on October 24, 2023.
  • Texas replied to our opposition on November 1, 2023.
• Following the grant of the preliminary injunction, Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction, allowing the law to take effect on September 19, 2023.
  • The ACLU, CDT, EFF, FIRE, Media Coalition, and TechFreedom filed an amicus brief in support of our case.
  • On November 14, 2023, the 5th Circuit converted the administrative stay of the preliminary injunction to a merits stay.
  • The 5th Circuit handed down a mixed opinion, barring the state from mandating pseudoscientific “health warnings” on adult websites while lifting the injunction against the state’s age verification mandate on March 7, 2024. 
• We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting that the 5th Circuit decision be stayed and overturned by the Supreme Court on April 12, 2024.
  • On April 26, the Supreme Court denied our application for a stay of the 5th Circuit’s decision. Read FSC’s statement on the decision.
  • On July 2, 2024, the Supreme Court granted our petition for certiorari.
  • We filed our merits brief and joint appendix on September 16, 2024
  • Eleven groups of amici curiae filed briefs in support of our case with the Supreme Court:
    • Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Prof. Eran Tromer (Boston University), and Prof. Sarah Scheffler (Carnegie Mellon University)
    • Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Reason Foundation, First Amendment Lawyers Association
    • Institute for Justice
    • Cato Institute
    • Electronic Freedom Foundation, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and TechFreedom
    • Law Professors: Zachary Cantanzaro (St. Thomas University), Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University), Robert Heverly (Albany Law School), Jane Kirtley (University of Minnesota), Mark Lemely (Stanford Law School), David Levine (Elon University), and Yvette Joy Liebesman (Saint Louis University)
    • International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC)
    • National Coalition Against Censorship and O.School
    • American Booksellers for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and Freedom to Read Foundation
    • Atsign
    • First Amendment Scholars: Jennifer Safstrom (Vanderbilt Law School), Clay Calvert (American Enterprise Institute), Erwin Chemerinsky (UC Berkley), Alan Chen (University of Denver), Brett G. Johnson (University of Iowa), Lyrissa Lidsky (University of Florida), Clare R. Norins (University of Georgia), Amanda Reid (University of North Carolina), and Nadine Strossen (NYU).
  • In addition, the Solicitor General filed a brief on behalf of the United States supporting our position that the Fifth Circuit’s decision should be overturned.