“Harmful to minors” is a legal term describing content defined as legally obscene for minors. To be considered as legally harmful to minors the material has to meet all the criteria below.

1. Taken as a whole, it appeals to the prurient sexual interest of minors.
2. It is patently offensive under prevailing adult-community standards concerning what is suitable for minors.
3. Taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

The definition is a variation on the 1973 “Miller test,” which the Supreme Court established to determine what type of sexually explicit material is legally "obscene" (for everyone, including adults) and thus not protected by the First Amendment. “Harmful to minors” thus refers to material that is obscene for minors, which is a broader category of speech that the government can regulate without violating the Constitution.

Note: The test doesn’t cover all sexually explicit material, only material that is patently offensive by community standards and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. If you believe that is somewhat vague and subjective, you are right: it is. In fact, the National Coalition Against Censorship was formed in the wake of the Miller test out of concern that the legal definition of obscenity was overbroad and subjective, and would increase censorship!

Key takeaway: Even when a significant amount of artwork on your website meets a state’s legal definition of being “harmful to minors,” that does not necessarily make it illegal to create the work or share it with other adults. It simply means that artwork may not be accessed by minors. Whether or how it is subject to age verification requirements online usually depends on the location of the site visitor, and the definition of “harmful to minors” used by that state.

No. State AV laws differ regarding:

• The acceptable threshold for “harmful to minors” content. Many states require age verification when more than a “substantial portion” or one-third of a website's material would be considered “harmful to minors”-- but what the threshold is, and how it is determined, is not uniform across states.
• Who decides whether content requires age verification. Some states leave the question to courts, while others give power to regulators or enforcement authorities to decide.
• Who can bring an enforcement action. Depending on the law, enforcement may involve a state attorney general, another government official, private citizens, or some combination.

AV laws also differ because the very definition of “harmful to minors” content varies. This can impact:

• What material is covered. Different statutes list different qualifiers for what constitutes material that is “harmful to minors,” which may include: specific sexual acts, nudity, sexual excitement, and/or particular anatomical depictions.
• How the obscenity test is used. Some laws follow the three-part Miller test formulation; others use different or additional language.
• The age minimum required to access sites that require age verification.
• The interpretation of “offensiveness” and “serious value.” Educational, artistic, scientific, news, public-interest, or other material may receive different treatment depending on the state.

Note: This is a contested area of law. AV laws are being challenged in a number of ongoing lawsuits. Those lawsuits have had varying degrees of success, with courts pausing enforcement of AV laws in some instances. However, the Supreme Court in FSC v. Paxton ruled that states applying the “harmful to minors” variation of the Miller standard to websites hosting sexual content have the power to mandate age verification. It is important to stay informed on key changes that might impact your website or platform, especially if you control access to a website that may be subject to age verification requirements.

As noted above, state AV laws differ in whether they apply to businesses, commercial entities, or anyone operating a website, including an individual. And while some AV statutes (like Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 129B.003, for example) are limited to businesses that sell products (see, for example, Texas), others (like Tennessee's, which includes criminal penalties) apply to both commercial entities and individuals, regardless of whether they engage in commerce.

One limitation on being sued or charged in state court is the concept of “personal jurisdiction,” which describes when a state actually has the ability to haul you into court—sometimes called “the long arm of the law.” Generally, courts may not subject you to penalties unless you intentionally target your conduct (here, a website) toward residents of that state in some way. While the concept of personal jurisdiction for laws regulating digital speech is in flux (after all, AV laws are a fairly recent phenomenon), as a general matter, websites that knowingly seek or target users from a specific state will be subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Potentially, yes. Websites that are based or hosted outside the United States may be subject to U.S. state laws. Some laws are aimed at websites that can be accessed by users in that state, regardless of where the website or its operator are located.

Recently, Texas got a court to freeze the URL domain for an overseas pornography site that did not implement age verification required by Texas law. The site operator was based outside the United States, but the court was able to order the U.S.-based ".com" domain registry to lock the domain—meaning that no one anywhere on the globe can access that site.

This illustrates that operating or hosting a website outside the United States does not necessarily shield the site from U.S. enforcement. Where your domain is registered, where your hosting and service providers are located, and where your audience is located can all matter. At the same time, hosting or operating a site outside the U.S. may expose you to additional legal requirements in the country where you operate or host the site.

Some websites have already decided to block access to users within particular U.S. states rather than implement their age-verification requirements, demonstrating that these laws can affect websites and creators well outside the states that enacted them. If you live outside the United States, you should consider where your audience is located—not only where your website or business is based—when assessing whether these laws may apply to you.

Compliance with age verification laws may be difficult for individual artists or smaller organizations less equipped to absorb the costs of technology, security, and legal help. Here are the basics of what you will need to know:

• Age verification

  Depending on the state, the law may require website operators to use “commercially reasonable” methods (like industry-accepted third-party tools), or a specific method to determine a user’s age. This may include government ID, facial age estimation, third-party verification services, or other forms of age verification. An industry group representing age verification companies has a list of possible third-party age verification providers.

• Data compliance

  Whatever form of compliance you choose, if it includes the collection of sensitive information such as documents, biometric data, or other personal information, you must know or understand how that information will be collected, used, stored, and deleted. Using a third-party provider does not absolve you of your responsibility to ensure the data privacy of your site visitors, and most statutes prohibit the retention of personal data after the age check is complete.

If incorporating AV tools on your site is not possible for you, alternatives exist. If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill a legal requirement to include age verification on your site, your other options include prohibiting site access to anyone living in a state with AV laws, or removing artwork that might meet the definition of “harmful to minors.”

Learn more in “What are my options if the content on my website meets the AV laws criteria?”

As a practical starting point, pay particular attention if your site contains substantial amounts of sexually explicit material—such as depictions of sexual acts, masturbation, visible erections or genitalia in a sexual context, or imagery that strongly emphasizes sexual activity. Generally speaking, nudity that is not sexually explicit is constitutionally protected even if minors can access it, especially when it has clear “artistic value,” a prong of the Miller test. However, it is still possible that some states might argue that exposure of certain body parts appeals to a minor’s “prurient interest in nudity.”

If a significant portion of your site could plausibly fall within a state's definition of “harmful to minors,” review specific state laws rather than relying on generalizations. If potentially “harmful to minors” material on your site exceeds 33%, the site almost certainly is subject to requiring AV protocols. If you have smaller percentages of potentially “harmful to minors” content, whether or not you need age verification depends on what the rest of your site contains. Calculating these percentages is also not straightforward, and is dependent on the state’s definitions, requirements, and methods for calculating that percentage. Because there is no objective formula for measuring a percentage of one’s speech as “harmful to minors,” it is most important that you be aware of the law’s thresholds, and have a thoughtful justification if you determine that your site has “harmful to minors” material but does not meet a certain mathematical percentage.

Depending on your situation, you may consider:

• Implementing age verification: Use a third-party or other method that meets the requirements of the state’s law. This site may be helpful in selecting a provider.
• Restricting access: Keep any content that potentially meets “harmful to minors” definitions behind a login, paywall, age-restricted section, or other access control where legally appropriate.
• Limiting or blocking access from certain states: You may be able to restrict access to your site by users in states where legal compliance is particularly burdensome. However, this will also prevent all users in those states from accessing your site. Additionally, it may not protect you if a minor uses a VPN to access your site.
• Removing relevant content: This remains a straightforward option for content that is likely to be interpreted as "harmful to minors.""
• “Padding” the site with anodyne content: This means adding content that will not be read as “harmful to minors” in order to impact the ratio of content.
• What if I choose not to comply? You may face civil or even criminal charges or penalties, depending on the state law that is applied. If this happens, you will need to obtain a lawyer and go to court. But—noncompliance is not the only form of resistance.

Whatever approach you use, we recommend combining it with advocacy so that your own self-censorship, and the shrinking of what is legally safe to publish online, does not happen in silence:

• Explain on your site and socials, or write an OpEd about why you are removing / restricting certain content for all users. Make it known!
• Submit a censorship report to DDA. We are tracking the impacts of AV laws on art so that we can speak to the issues facing artists online.
• Reach out to your public officials if you live in a state with AV laws and explain how they have harmed you, your art, or broader access to important speech.

Learn more in “Can I push back?”

If you decide to restrict access to users in states with age-verification laws, you can use IP geoblocking. For IP geoblocking, a service identifies the visitor’s approximate location from their IP address and blocks or redirects visitors from selected states. Services such as Cloudflare or Geotargetly provide tools and suggestions for blocking traffic based on geographic location.

Further, you can redirect users from blocked states to a custom explainer page. Here’s some sample language you may want to draw from if you decide to make such a page (inspired and adapted from those provided by Free Speech Coalition):

Important: IP geolocation can be manipulated by the site visitor’s intentional use of VPNs, proxies, and mobile networks. Many state laws do not render the website provider liable if they exceed the minimum allowable percentage of “harmful to minors” content, but, like many AV laws, this varies state to state. Notably, in 2026 Utah passed a law requiring site providers to affirmatively verify user location even if the user has a VPN. If subject to this kind of law, some website owners may wish to ban all visitors using VPNs.

Age verification can involve sensitive personal information, particularly when systems use government IDs, biometric information, or other identifying information. The privacy risks depend on the verification method and the companies involved.

Before choosing a provider, find out:

• What information does it collect?
• Does your website receive the person's identity, or only an age result?
• How long is the information stored?
• Can the provider use it for other purposes?
• Is the information shared with third parties?
• What security measures protect it?
• What happens if the provider suffers a breach?

Where possible, NCAC advises to choose verification systems that minimize the personal information your site receives and retains. Some states also have specific privacy requirements, so data protection should be part of your planning from the beginning if you choose to hire a provider.

• Be vocal and educate others about the negative impacts of AV on the cultural sector: On your website and social media platforms, contribute to public discussion around these laws and share how they are affecting you and your artwork or cultural programs. For example, Free Speech Coalition has created a popup that can be added to your site to alert users in specific states who have pending Age Verification legislation.
• Get involved: Pay attention to AV laws in your state. If you live in a state with AV laws, or if AV bills are under consideration in your state, write your representatives about the ways in which they threaten your expression, access to audiences, and privacy.
• Look for allies: Organizations working on free expression and digital rights can provide information, advocacy, and opportunities to participate in ongoing challenges to particular laws.

Learn more in “Who can I turn to for help?”

Age-verification laws are changing quickly, and some are being challenged in court. If you are unsure how a law applies to your website, consider consulting an attorney familiar with First Amendment, internet, or arts law.

You can also follow organizations working on these issues, including:

• Free Speech Coalition (FSC) — litigation and advocacy concerning sexual expression and age-verification laws.
• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) — digital rights, privacy, free expression, and age-verification resources.
• Fight for the Future (FFTF) — advocacy around US legislation related to digital rights and online censorship.
• American Civil Liberties Union — litigation and advocacy concerning civil liberties, including freedom of expression.
• National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) — resources and advocacy concerning censorship and artistic expression.

These organizations can help you understand ongoing litigation and advocacy, but they are not substitutes for legal advice about your particular website.

If you are an artist or if you represent a cultural organization and have questions or concerns, we welcome you to reach out to us at dda@ncac.org.