Pornhub Lawsuit: Federal Case, Class Actions, and FTC Order

August 25, 2026

A Pornhub lawsuit today rarely means a single case. Aylo, the company that owns Pornhub (formerly MindGeek), is defending itself on multiple fronts at once: a federal criminal resolution it is still living under, a Federal Trade Commission consent order requiring a decade of audits, active class actions in Alabama and California alleging distribution of child sexual abuse material and sex trafficking, individual trafficking suits that also target Visa and hedge-fund backers, a proposed class action in Canada, and a running battle over state age-verification laws that has already blocked the site in nearly half the country.

The Federal Criminal Case

On December 21, 2023, Aylo appeared in Brooklyn federal court to finalize a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, ending a 30-month investigation by federal prosecutors and the FBI.¹

The charge was narrow: unlawful monetary transactions involving sex trafficking proceeds, tied to Aylo’s business relationship with GirlsDoPorn, a now-defunct production company whose operators were convicted of sex trafficking. Aylo admitted knowingly profiting from videos of women who had been coerced into sexual acts and turning a “blind eye” to victim reports between 2016 and 2019.² Federal prosecutors did not charge the company with sex trafficking, child pornography, or the sexual exploitation of minors.³

Aylo agreed to pay $1,844,952.83 to the U.S. government plus restitution to GirlsDoPorn victims whose images appeared on its platforms.¹ It also agreed to retain an independent third-party monitor for three years, approved by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to oversee compliance, content screening, and due diligence.⁴ If Aylo stays in full compliance through the three-year term, the government has agreed to seek dismissal with prejudice.⁵ That window is expected to close in late 2026 or early 2027.

The FTC and Utah Consent Order

On September 3, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection filed a complaint and proposed consent order against Aylo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging the company had systematically deceived users about its efforts to block child sexual abuse material and nonconsensual sexual content.⁶

According to the complaint, Aylo had since 2012 distributed tens of thousands of videos and photos featuring child sexual abuse material and nonconsensual content such as revenge pornography and hidden-camera recordings.⁷ Despite publicly claiming a “zero tolerance” policy, Aylo allegedly failed to review flagged videos, ignored internal compliance warnings, did not screen content before it went live, used ineffective fingerprinting technology, and failed to verify the age and identity of performers.⁶ The complaint also alleged Aylo deceived performers about the security of sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses that were supposed to be stored securely by a third-party vendor but were instead passed to Aylo and emailed among employees.⁸ One internal compliance team member reportedly described Pornhub as a “goldmine” for “rape content.”

The proposed order, approved by the FTC on a 3-0 vote, imposed a $15 million penalty. Aylo paid $5 million immediately to Utah, with the remaining $10 million triggered by any noncompliance.⁷ The order also requires Aylo to build a program to detect, remove, and prevent publication of illegal content; verify that all performers are adults who consented to both the sexual conduct and its publication; remove all content uploaded before the new program takes effect until age and consent can be verified; implement a comprehensive data security program; and post a public notice on its websites describing the allegations and terms.⁶ Aylo must submit to independent third-party audits every two years for the next decade. The District Court entered the stipulated order and a judgment for plaintiffs in September 2025.⁹

Class Action in Alabama Federal Court

The most advanced civil case is Doe #1 v. MG Freesites LTD et al., No. 7:21-cv-00220, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The lead plaintiff, Jane Doe #1, was 16 when she was drugged and raped in Tuscaloosa; her assault was filmed and uploaded to MindGeek’s platforms.¹⁰

The suit alleges MindGeek knowingly hosted, reviewed, categorized, tagged, and distributed child sexual abuse material while profiting from its views and downloads, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The plaintiffs also claim the company used search-engine optimization and keywords such as “crying teen” and “abused teen” to drive traffic to illegal material.¹¹

The court denied MindGeek’s motion to dismiss, holding that Section 230 does not shield the company from liability for distributing child sexual abuse material. In December 2024, a federal judge denied summary judgment, ruling that Pornhub must face trial and stating that “CSAM, by contrast, is itself a violent crime, a record of that crime, and contraband — not information.”¹² The class was certified in late 2023, covering individuals who appeared in explicit content on any MindGeek platform as minors from 2011 onward. The Ninth Circuit denied MindGeek’s attempt to appeal that certification.¹³ As of late 2024, the parties had entered settlement discussions while continuing trial preparations.¹¹

Class Action in California Federal Court

A parallel class action, Doe v. MindGeek USA Inc., No. 8:21-cv-00338, is pending in the Central District of California. Judge Cormac J. Carney denied MindGeek’s motion to dismiss, again rejecting a Section 230 defense because the claims involved online sex trafficking allegations under FOSTA.¹⁴ The court certified the class in November 2023, and the case remained active as of mid-2026.¹³

Individual Trafficking Suits and the Visa Question

Fifteen women who opted out of class litigation filed individual lawsuits in the Central District of California against MindGeek, its former owners, financial backers including two hedge funds, and Visa Inc. The suits alleged the defendants participated in or profited from a sex trafficking venture spanning 2013 to 2023.¹⁵

Whether Visa can be held liable has been the closest-watched legal question. In a 2022 ruling in Fleites v. MindGeek, Judge Carney denied Visa’s motion to dismiss, writing that the court could “comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so.”¹⁶ The case was later reassigned to Judge Wesley Hsu, who took a different view. In September 2025, Judge Hsu granted Visa’s motion to dismiss the trafficking and related claims, ruling that a business relationship continued after warning signs does not amount to intentional participation in a trafficking venture without evidence of “alignment with unlawful aims.”¹⁷ Some claims were dismissed with prejudice; others were dismissed with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate that order, and as of April 2026 briefing on multiple motions was ongoing.¹⁸

The MindGeek defendants answered the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint in February 2026. Other defendants, including investment firms Colbeck and Redwood, filed their own motions to dismiss.¹⁸ The civil complaint names former CEO Feras Antoon and former COO David Tassillo as individuals who allegedly exercised “ultimate control” over all MindGeek entities and adopted a business model that solicited, monetized, and optimized illegal material.¹⁹

The GirlsDoPorn Civil Settlement

One round of litigation has already closed. In October 2021, 50 women who sued MindGeek over GirlsDoPorn content reached a settlement on undisclosed terms. Separately, in San Diego Superior Court, 22 women won a judgment of nearly $13 million against the operators of GirlsDoPorn themselves.²⁰

Canadian Class Action

In Canada, the firm Sotos Class Actions filed a proposed class action in Quebec Superior Court in December 2020 on behalf of people worldwide whose intimate videos or photos were posted without consent on MindGeek-operated websites since 2007. The claims allege the company profited from disseminating child sexual abuse material, sexual assault footage, and nonconsensual intimate images, and that it failed to employ sufficient trained moderators or adequate screening.²¹ The proposed class seeks a minimum of $600 million. As of mid-2026 the case has not been certified; an authorization hearing is set for September 2026.²²

Why Section 230 Has Not Ended These Cases

A recurring question is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks these suits. The results have split by content type.

For child sexual abuse material, courts have largely rejected the defense. The Alabama court ruled CSAM is “contraband” rather than protected information, so hosting it cannot be treated as a neutral editorial act.¹² In the California class action, Judge Carney similarly held that sex trafficking claims under FOSTA could proceed past the Section 230 barrier.¹⁴

When the content is nonconsensual adult material rather than CSAM, the picture changes. In Does 1-9 v. Murphy, a September 2025 decision from the District of South Carolina, the court granted summary judgment for Pornhub and co-defendant xHamster, finding Section 230 immunity applied to surreptitiously recorded videos uploaded by third parties. Creating thumbnails, categorizing content with tags, and deploying recommendation algorithms were all “neutral editorial functions,” the court held. It also dismissed FOSTA-based claims, ruling that footage being fraudulently obtained does not by itself amount to sex trafficking under federal law.²³

Age-Verification Laws and State Blocks

Running alongside the exploitation suits is a separate legal front. Beginning with Louisiana in 2022, 25 states now require some form of age verification for sites containing material deemed harmful to minors.²⁴ Rather than comply in most of these states, Aylo has chosen to block access to Pornhub entirely. As of March 2026, the site is inaccessible in 23 states, and traffic in Louisiana dropped by roughly 80 percent after the ID requirement took effect.²⁵

The constitutional question reached the Supreme Court after a federal judge initially struck down the Texas age-verification law and the Fifth Circuit reversed, applying rational-basis review to uphold it.²⁶ In June 2025, the Supreme Court deemed the Texas law constitutional, precedent that has emboldened further state action.²⁵

Aylo has continued to challenge specific laws. In June 2026 the company filed a federal lawsuit challenging Utah Senate Bill 73, which would hold adult websites liable for minors who use VPNs to bypass geographic age restrictions. Aylo argues the law penalizes platforms for circumstances beyond their control, and the bill’s sponsor acknowledged uncertainty about whether detecting VPN users is technically feasible. Utah has agreed to suspend enforcement while the case proceeds.²⁷ Aylo publicly advocates for device-level age filters as an alternative to requiring users to submit government identification to individual websites.²⁵

Where Things Stand in 2026

Aylo is operating simultaneously under the DOJ’s three-year deferred prosecution agreement, which approaches its expiration, and the FTC’s court-entered consent order requiring a decade of audits and an overhaul of its content verification systems. The Alabama and California class actions remain active, with settlement discussions underway in Alabama. The individual trafficking suits in the Central District of California continue, with motions to dismiss by Visa and other defendants still being briefed. The Canadian class action awaits its September 2026 authorization hearing. And the age-verification battle continues to expand, with the site blocked in nearly half the country and a new Utah law being fought in federal court.

1
U.S. Department of Justice. Pornhub Parent Company Admits Receiving Proceeds of Sex Trafficking
2
Mid Michigan Now. Pornhub Parent Company Admits to Profiting off Sex Trafficking
3
Aylo. Aylo and the United States Attorney’s Office Reach Agreement
4
Techdirt. Aylo’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement
5
U.S. Department of Justice. Aylo Deferred Prosecution Agreement
6
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Takes Action Against Operators of Pornhub
7
Utah Department of Commerce. Utah Division of Consumer Protection and FTC Secure Landmark Settlement With Aylo
8
Courthouse News Service. FTC vs. Pornhub Complaint
9
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Litigation Report
10
National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Pornhub Class Action Lawsuit
11
Levin Law. MindGeek Pornhub Lawsuit
12
National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Pornhub Cannot Rely on Section 230 Shield
13
CourtListener. Jane Doe v. MindGeek USA Incorporated Docket
14
Top Class Actions. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Pornhub Encouraged Child Pornography
15
Courthouse News Service. Judge Tentatively Dismisses Visa From Pornhub Sex Trafficking Lawsuits
16
BBC. Pornhub: Visa Stays in Abuse Lawsuit
17
FindLaw. Fleites v. Visa Inc.
18
CourtListener. Serena Fleites v. MindGeek S.A.R.L. Docket
19
Courthouse News Service. Fleites vs. MindGeek Second Amended Complaint
20
Times of San Diego. Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Against Pornhub for SD-Based GirlsDoPorn.com Videos
21
Canada Newswire. Class Action Alleges Pornhub Parent Company Profits off of Abuse and Non-Consensual Content
22
Sotos Class Actions. Pornhub Class Action
23
Eric Goldman Blog. Section 230 Applies to Surreptitiously Recorded Video
24
Free Speech Coalition. Age Verification Bills
25
Mashable. Pornhub Blocked States
26
Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Wins After Pornography Companies Sued Texas Over Age Verification
27
Utah Public Radio. Utah VPN Pornhub Lawsuit