Utah is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit over the state’s new law requiring websites with pornographic material to verify the age of its users, arguing that the complaint is misguided and names the wrong defendants.

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association representing the adult industry, filed the suit in early May over SB287, which in an attempt to restrict minors requires age verification for all users who try to access pornographic content online.

Websites that fail to “to perform reasonable age verification methods,” according to the law, could also now be sued for damages that stem from a minor accessing the adult content.

The law sailed through the legislature during the 2023 session with unanimous support.

Related
Porn group sues Utah over law requiring age verification
Utah says porn sites must verify users are adults. Here’s how one of the biggest sites responded
Porn group asks judge to put a hold on Utah’s law requiring age verification for adult content

But the Free Speech Coalition says it runs afoul of the First Amendment by imposing a “content-based restriction on protected speech” without accomplishing its stated purpose — minors can “easily obtain” the content “from other sources and via other means,” according to the original complaint. The group has since asked the court to put a hold on the new law.

The motion filed on June 14 is the latest development in the case, and, in a 13-page filing, attorneys for Utah say that the complaint actually names the wrong people.

“There is no case or controversy between Plaintiffs and these Defendants,” the court documents state.

View Comments

The defendants — Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Jess Anderson — are not actually charged with enforcing the act, Utah attorneys argue.

Rather, the law creates a private right of action, the state claims, “by which Utah residents — and not state actors — are empowered to (enforce).”

“Because Commissioner Anderson and Attorney General Reyes lack authority to enforce the Act, there is nothing this Court can enjoin them from doing,” court documents read.

Attorneys for the state are asking the court to hear arguments for the motion to dismiss on July 17.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.