Internet Porn Censorship

From 6 November 2026, it will be a criminal offence in England and Wales to possess or publish pornographic images that explicitly and realistically depict:

• strangulation or suffocation

• penetrative sexual activity between people who a reasonable person would think are related, or pretending to be related, in a certain way. This includes depictions of close familial relatives such as father and daughter or brother and sister, and certain step and foster relationships where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18

• sexual activity between at least 2 people where a reasonable person would think at least one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The offences only capture pornography that shows people which appear, to a reasonable person, to be real.

The maximum penalty for possession is:

• 2 years' imprisonment for pornography that depicts strangulation or suffocation, or penetrative sexual activity between certain relatives;

• 3 years' imprisonment for pornography depicting sexual activity involving a person who is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The maximum penalty for publication for all offences is 5 years' imprisonment.

There are defences available for these offences. For example, a person may have a defence to the possession and publication offences if they had not seen the image before and did not know, or have cause to suspect, that it was an image covered by the offences.

There is also a defence where the person who possesses or publishes the image directly participated in the act shown in the image and other criteria are met. For the possession offences, there is also a defence where a person was sent the image without asking for it (either themselves, or through a third party) and did not keep it for an unreasonable length of time.

The offences also attract a defence of legitimate reason for possessing or publishing the image.

What we mean by possession and publication

The term possess is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether a person possesses an image will be a question of fact for the court in each case. However, we consider that possessing an image will generally mean having custody or control of it. This could include where an image is stored on a device, retained in a personal account or cloud, saved in files, or otherwise kept physically or virtually.

Publish is defined in the offences to include giving or making an image available to another person by any means. This could include uploading, posting, sending, sharing or distributing an image. What we mean by strangulation and suffocation

The term strangulation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts strangulation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that strangulation generally means one person applying pressure to another person's neck.

The term suffocation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts suffocation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that suffocation will generally mean depriving a person of air in a way that affects their ability to breathe. Unlike strangulation, this does not require pressure to the neck. It could, for example, involve covering someone's mouth and nose or compressing their chest.

What you need to do before 6 November 2026

Possession is a continuing act. If you already possess an image covered by these offences, you will need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before 6 November 2026 to avoid committing an offence once the offences come into force.

Publication can also be a continuing act. If you have uploaded, posted or otherwise made an image covered by these offences available whether online or offline, you will need to remove it and stop making it available to others before 6 November 2026.

If you possess or are continuing to publish an image covered by these offences, you must stop doing so before they come into force. This means if you possess it, you need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before commencement. If you are continuing to publish it (whether online or offline), you need to remove it and stop publication before commencement.

The government has commissioned British Board of Film Censorship to test the feasibility of censoring online pornography for violent and abusive content.

The pilot by the BBFC will inform ministerial decisions on the most effective way to censor world wide websites potentially resulting in a formal online censor.

A government commissioned review by anti porn peer Gabby Bertin has resulted in new criminal offences for the publication and possession of certain types of online pornography, including strangulation, incest, step-incest and adults role-playing as children.

The laws will come into force by the 6th November. However Baroness Bertin said for the legislation to be effective there also needed to be more proactive regulation, including spot checking and auditing.

Bertin's review had suggested the BBFC audit websites, given its experience monitoring offline pornography for 40 years. They have previously raised concerns about the disparity between online and offline regulation and said they stand ready to expand their remit.

They were awarded a three-month contract for an Audit of Internet Services pilot in July. The pilot includes generating evidence on the availability of certain online pornographic content and evaluating how it could be monitored and reported on at scale given the huge size of the market.

Such a porn censor would need funding for staff to monitor content as well as new technology. Baroness Bertin proposed a model where porn companies as well as social media companies and search engines pay for it.

Bertin suggested that users would appreciate a BBFC censored website saying:

You are then saying to users, we are tried and tested and if you come into our site you won't see illegal content.

She said as well as monitoring for illegal content, an auditor could draw up guidance to address the grey area of material that is not illegal but would be banned in the offline world. It could also do spot checks for age of performers and consent, and help bring down sites that are not behind an age gate or are showing illegal content - either through having its own statutory powers or working alongside Ofcom.

Ofcom has the power to fines sites that don't comply with new age verification requirements that came into force last year as part of the Online Safety Act, but Baroness Bertin said the system is too slow. It should also be noted that only a couple of websites have actually paid Ofcom fines.

The French National Assembly has backed off from a proposal to criminalize the purchase, and/or facilitation by online platforms, of sexual services performed remotely by streamers and custom content creators.

French criminal law punishes clients of prostitutes as well as anyone who profits financially from prostitution. However, Frances highest court has ruled that online services such as camming do not fall under the definition of prostitution.

In the original version of Bill 3106, which is aimed at addressing sexual and gender-based violence against women and children, Article 25 would have broadened the definition of prostitution to include the online purchase of sexual acts, treating online platforms that facilitate streaming and custom content as 'pimps,' and users who tip streamers or commission customs as 'johns.'

Such a ban could have led to enforcement against fan and webcam platforms, their users, and conceivably even against creators who collaborate together. A similar ban was enacted in Sweden last year.

Assembly member Sarah Legrain told legislators:

We are not talking about platforms that allow clients and people engaged in prostitution to meet in person, but rather about acts carried out behind a camera ... a customer at a strip club can pay to physically attend a striptease; however, someone who requests footage of a striptease from a consenting individual, filmed at home--in a setting likely more protective than that of a strip club--could be prosecuted, as could the landlord of the apartment and the platform that hosted the content. Similarly, it is perfectly legal to buy a pornographic film in which two adults have had physical sexual relations in a film studio ... however, it would become illegal to watch someone, alone behind their camera, at home, caressing their feet.

Deputy Ségolène Amiot urged members to consider the issue carefully.:

After voting to water down Article 25, it now criminalizes the purchase of remote sexual services only if the buyer is aware that a performer or model is a victim of online sexual exploitation.

The anti porn campaigner and peer Gabby Bertin asked the government about the implementation schedule of the ban on possession and publication of porn featuring strangulation and suffocation.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 includes a clause that amends the extreme porn provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It adds the offence:

(67A) Possession or publication of pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if—

(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,

(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and

(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.

(2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) .

(3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.

Gerard Lemos answered for the government:

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 contains a wide range of measures to strengthen the criminal law. The Government is working with law enforcement and other partners and will bring the remaining provisions into force as quickly as practicable.

We are progressing work to bring these offences into force this autumn, balancing speed with operational considerations and wider system impacts. We will clearly communicate to the public when these measures are commenced.

According to XBiz:

Ofcom, which enforces the Online Safety Act, has been awaiting guidance from the government on exactly how the new provision is to be implemented. It remains unclear what specific criteria might be used for assessing whether an image or video violates the law, whether Ofcom will be the sole investigator/enforcer of the law or if other agencies might be involved, and whether there will be an official procedure or series of steps for investigations and enforcement actions, as has been the case with enforcement of OSA age assurance rules.

It will be interesting to see the detailed censorship rules. Anything close to merely squeezing the throat for a short time or gagging in blowjobs would mean that tens of thousands of worldwide porn videos would qualify as illegal and every porn tube site in the world would be illegal. I don't see much chance of Pornhub working through all its porn videos censoring out offending scenes.

Update on existing investigations: Provisional Decisions

Web Prime Inc

On 29 September 2026, we issued a provisional notice of contravention to Web Prime Inc as the provider of:

• anysex.com
• fapality.com
• mylust.com
• xcafe.com
• yourlust.com

This notice sets out our provisional view that we have reasonable grounds to believe that Web Prime has failed to comply with its duty to use highly effective ID/age assurance. We have also provisionally found that Web Prime has failed, and is failing, to comply with its duties  to respond to a statutory request for information.

The websites are currently self blocked to readers with a UK IP address but may be accessed using a VPN.

 

The provider of porntrex.com

Ofcom came to the same conclusion about the website porntrex.com. Again this website is currently self blocked to readers with a UK IP address but may be accessed using a VPN.

 

First Time Videos LLC -- case closure

Ofcom closed its investigation into First Time Videos LLC in relation to its failure to implement adequate ID/age verification. Ofcom had imposed a penalty on First Time Videos of £80,000.

In response to our investigation, First Time Videos LLC has implemented a block to restrict users with UK IP addresses from accessing its service and has advised Ofcom that it will put highly effective age assurance in place on its services. For the moment the FTV websites still give the impression that they are available after paying with a debit card or credit card.

First Time Videos LLC has paid the penalty set out in the Confirmation Decision. This investigation is now closed.

Ofcom launches investigation into Pornhub's age checks

Ofcom has opened an investigation into Aylo -- the service provider of Pornhub -- under the UK's Online Safety Act, to determine whether it has complied with its duties to prevent children from encountering pornographic content.

In May 2026, Pornhub deployed a new age assurance process for some users. This process relies on signals from a third party, in this case Apple, that suggest UK users trying to access Pornhub may have completed Apple's age checks.

The Online Safety Act is clear that it is the service provider's responsibility to ensure that any age assurance process is highly effective -- no matter at what stage an age check occurs.

Providers must also carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of whether their service is likely to be accessed by children. They must do this before making any significant change to the design or operation of their service, or in response to evidence about reduced effectiveness of age checks.

We are concerned that Aylo may not have conducted sufficient due diligence and testing before implementing its new age assurance process. As a result, we are concerned that Aylo's process may not be highly effective at preventing children from seeing pornography.

Ofcom has decided to open a formal investigation to establish whether Aylo has failed to comply with legal obligations under the Online Safety Act, in particular to:

• use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from seeing pornography; and complete a suitable and sufficient children's access assessment.

• As part of our investigation we will consider how Aylo implemented its age assurance process, and whether it conducted the necessary due diligence before deployment. Our investigation will not make a determination on how Apple operates its age checks.

 

In response to Ofcom's announcement

See article from aylo.com Statement by Alex Kekesi, VP Brand and Community, on behalf of Aylo

Four months following our successful launch of age verification on Pornhub for eligible adult users in the United Kingdom (UK) who have confirmed their age through Apple's UK age-verification process, Ofcom informed us that they were launching an investigation into our use of Apple's age assurance in the United Kingdom. We are committed to working constructively with Ofcom and Apple in our shared commitment to child protection.

We trust that the investigation will show Apple's UK device-level age-verification update, which renders devices operating since iOS26.4 kid safe by default, offers one of the strongest and hardest to circumvent protections currently available for helping prevent minors from accessing age-inappropriate content.

In March 2026, Apple demonstrated its commitment to child safety by becoming the first operating system developer to automatically enable adult content website filtering, effectively making adult content websites inaccessible to unverified or minor UK-based Apple iOS and iPadOS users. This update was welcomed with a public statement by Ofcom, in which it praised Apple's decision that the UK be one of the first countries in the world to receive new child safety protections on devices [as] a real win for children and families206Our rules are flexible and designed to encourage innovation, particularly in age assurance. We've worked closely with Apple and other services to ensure they can be applied in a variety of contexts in order to ensure users are protected.

In June, the UK government announced its expectation that all operating system manufacturers should follow this same standard. In September, the UK government further announced it would introduce legislation requiring these device level controls and for them to be enabled by default, reinforcing the strength and importance of Apple's implementation, making this a highly effective age assurance method.

Ofcom's own July 2026 report identifies the fundamental gap: age assurance is effective on individual services when properly implemented, but not yet at an overall system level, due to user migration to non-age assured sites. It recognizes that protection of children requires a system-wide effort, expressly identifying operating systems as having a potential role in strengthening protections. This is why we support Apple's device-level approach: protecting children should not depend on every website they visit choosing to follow the rules.

Given Aylo's well-documented commitment to compliance and to the effective protection of minors, we continue to believe that Apple's implementation presents an opportunity for constructive collaboration and for the UK to establish a meaningful precedent in advancing effective, privacy-preserving online safety. Having experimented in multiple markets with multiple methods of age assurance including in the UK, Aylo believes that Apple's implementation is a pioneering approach for child safety that provides significantly stronger protection than any other age assurance method currently available in the UK market.

As outlined by Lucy Faithfull Foundation, we know that when faced with age verification, some adults are choosing riskier, irresponsible sites to avoid age checks. According to the Free Speech Coalition less than 5% of consumers actually go through with age-verification for adult content. When confronted with a request for a facial scan and government ID, most consumers simply hit the back button and find a non-compliant site outside the mandate or log on to a VPN. The internet is global and it's impossible to patrol millions of different sites based in hundreds of different countries. Site-based regulation is always going to encourage evasion.

The UK government's recent announcements acknowledge this, as does Apple's own announcement that it will deploy the same implementation in Australia. Aylo is prepared to provide the technical evidence, testing and supporting assessments on which that position is based.

Aylo will cooperate fully with the investigation and looks forward to engaging with the case team.