Missouri’s new age assurance law specifies data storage restrictions

Missouri’s age assurance law applying to online pornography is back – and so, it would seem, is PornHub, now featuring an age verification prompt for Missouri users. The large porn platform owned by Aylo had pulled out of the state in initial objection to the incoming rule, but a report from the Kansas City Star says Pornhub now appears to be “active with an age verification tool.”

Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill No. 1839 last week, making it law. Promulgated by Attorney General Catherine Hanaway under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the rules it applies cover platforms on which more than a third of content could be classified as pornographic. Those that fail to implement effective measures to stop kids from accessing their sites are committing an “unfair practice” under the MMPA.

In enforcing the law, Hanaway has the ability to impose fines of up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance. And if users under the 18 end up exposed to “sexual material harmful to minors,” platforms can face a $250,000 penalty.

Credit Missouri for being specific in its definitions: the above is defined as material “designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; or in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated displays or depictions of: a person’s pubic hair, anus, or genitals or the nipple of the female breast; touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”

Credit the state, too, for specifying that “a commercial entity that performs the age verification or a third party that performs the age verification under this section shall not retain any identifying information of the individual.”

NetChoice steps up to smack down Missouri AI law

Like many states, Missouri has become a legal battleground in the fight between legislators and the industry lobby for social media and other Silicon Valley firms. NetChoice, which is Big Social’s most rigid litigatory instrument, is currently picking a fight with Missouri over Senate Bill 1012 – not an age assurance law, but one that “creates new provisions relating to artificial intelligence.”

The organization has issued “testimony in respectful opposition” to Missouri SB 1012, the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act.

“While we support Missouri’s interest in responsible artificial intelligence governance, SB 1012 as currently drafted would create an untenable regulatory and liability regime that will stifle AI innovation, harm consumer access to beneficial technologies and ultimately disadvantage Missouri residents relative to consumers in other states,” says the testimony.

The organization’s arguments are varied: the regulation is too broad in how it defines an AI “developer,” and exposes AI companies to “unlimited damages for harms that cannot be foreseen, controlled or prevented,” contradicting tort law. It is not precise enough in how it defines AI companion chatbots. “The suicide prevention and monitoring requirements impose impossible standards. The law discourages safety investment. It imposes significant compliance costs. A requirement to notify users “at least every two hours” of breaks is “operationally burdensome and of questionable effectiveness.” The timeline is unrealistic. Generally, the law creates “an untenable liability regime that will stifle AI innovation and harm consumers’ access to beneficial technology.”

Moreover, “Section 15, which declares AI systems to be ‘products’ for purposes of product liability, is among the most problematic provisions in the entire bill.”

“Subjecting AI to product liability standards means companies could be held liable for harms caused by properties that emerge unpredictably from complex systems. This standard is unworkable and will make it economically impossible to develop and deploy AI systems in Missouri.”

The point is less about a specific objection than it is about showcasing the menu of litigatory options available to NetChoice. The organization defends AI companies for the same reason it defends social media platforms: in many respects, they are the same companies, with the same access to limitless legal resources – facing the same regulatory wave driving age assurance technology globally.

Article Topics

age verification  |  Aylo  |  Missouri  |  Netchoice  |  United States