On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify users’ ages through government-issued ID. The 6–3 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton marks a significant shift in First Amendment jurisprudence and opens the door for expanded digital age-verification laws nationwide.

While framed as a child-protection measure, the Court’s ruling raises serious questions about adult privacy, free speech, and the disproportionate impact such laws may have on LGBTQ+ individuals – particularly minors and young adults who rely on the internet for community, health information, and identity development.

The Law and the Court’s Holding

Texas statute H.B. 1181 requires commercial websites hosting content that is at least one-third “sexual material harmful to minors” to implement age-verification systems before granting access. Users must upload a form of government ID or go through a third-party credentialing service. The law also mandates that sites display government-authored “health warnings” about pornography.

The Supreme Court upheld the law under intermediate scrutiny, with the majority opinion (authored by Justice Thomas) emphasizing the state’s “traditional power” to protect minors from sexually explicit content. The Court concluded that the law imposes only an “incidental burden” on adults’ speech and likened online ID checks to showing proof of age when entering a movie theater or liquor store.

In dissent, Justice Kagan criticized the majority for creating an exception to the First Amendment. She argued that the law is content-based and should have triggered strict scrutiny, especially given its chilling effect on lawful adult speech.

Privacy Risks of Mandatory Age Verification

Unlike in-person age checks, online verification often requires uploading sensitive personal data—such as driver’s license scans or facial recognition inputs—to websites or third-party services. This poses several risks, including:

• Loss of anonymity: Users engaging in constitutionally protected speech (including viewing legal erotic or educational material) must now disclose their identity, or at least identifying data, to proceed.
• Data exposure: Even when statutes prohibit long-term retention, there is no practical way for users to verify how their data is stored, shared, or secured. A breach or subpoena could expose sensitive browsing habits.
• Chilling effect: The fear of being identified or tracked may deter people – particularly those in stigmatized communities – from accessing lawful content.

These risks are not hypothetical. Cybersecurity experts warn that databases of adult-content visitors are prime targets for hacking, blackmail, or misuse by data brokers. For LGBTQ+ users, who may not be “out” to family or employers, these risks are magnified.

Disproportionate Impact on LGBTQ+ Users

Age-verification laws like Texas’s may have particularly harsh effects on LGBTQ+ individuals, especially minors in unsupportive households. For many, the internet provides a rare lifeline—to peer communities, affirming content, sexual health education, or information about identity.

LGBTQ+ teens are statistically more likely to face bullying, isolation, and mental health challenges. Online platforms and forums can be critical sources of support. However, under an age-verification mandate:

• Minors cannot legally access content deemed “harmful,” even if that content is affirming or educational.
• Uploading an ID may be impossible or unsafe, especially for closeted teens.
• Some laws may define LGBTQ+ content as “sexual” or “obscene” thus including non-explicit material under the vague standards of an age-verification mandate.

Some states (such as Florida’s 2023 “Don’t Say Gay” bill) have attempted to classify LGBTQ+ health or relationship content as inappropriate for youth, raising the concern that age-verification regimes will become a backdoor to censorship.

Practical Takeaways

For platforms and content hosts:

• Assess whether your content may trigger age-verification requirements in any of the growing number of states enacting similar laws.
• Consider implementing privacy-preserving verification solutions (such as anonymized age tokens or minimal-data processes).
• Review vendor agreements and user disclosures for transparency and data minimization.

For compliance teams:

• Monitor evolving legal developments – state-by-state requirements could vary widely and may conflict.
• Treat age-verification data as high-risk PII. Establish and enforce strict retention, access, and deletion protocols.
• Coordinate with product and legal teams to evaluate whether geoblocking, content filtering, or policy adjustments are appropriate.

For advocates and digital rights professionals:

• Watch for overbroad applications that disproportionately affect marginalized users.
• Consider litigation or legislative efforts to build in privacy safeguards, transparency, and carveouts for educational or identity-based content.
• Continue educating the public – especially youth and LGBTQ+ users – on digital privacy tools and rights.

Looking Ahead

The Free Speech Coalition decision is likely to accelerate legislative momentum behind age-verification laws, with nearly two dozen states already proposing or passing similar statutes. However, as these laws spread, so do the stakes for adult privacy, youth access to critical information, and the future of anonymity in digital spaces.

Robust protections for children need not come at the expense of privacy, identity, or speech. As compliance professionals and policymakers adapt to this new terrain, the challenge will be clear: safeguard minors without silencing or exposing the very communities most in need of digital safety and expression.

This post was authored by William Ollayos, Summer Associate. William is not admitted to practice law.