TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has filed suit against SARJ LLC, alleging that the company’s adult websites have failed to implement age verification as mandated by state law.
Kansas’ AV law, SB 394, became effective on July 1, 2024. It requires sites to verify that users are 18 or over prior to granting access to content deemed harmful to minors.
The AG’s petition, filed this week with the Shawnee County District Court, states that SARJ’s websites, described as “replete with nudity and a variety of sexual content,” do not employ age-gating technology aside from banners reading “This site contains sexually explicit material. By using this website you acknowledge that you are over 18” and the option to click “I Agree” or “I’ll Leave.” Such notices do not constitute compliance with Kansas statutory requirements, the suit notes.
The websites listed in the petition are metartnetwork.com, metart.com, metartx.com, sexart.com, vivthomas.com, thelifeerotic.com, eroticbeauty.com, lovehairy.com, domai.com, goddessnudes.com, rylskyart.com, stunning18.com, and straplez.com.
The suit requests a jury trial, asks that SARJ be prevented from conducting consumer transactions in Kansas, and calls for fines of between $500 and $10,000 per violation per day, which could amount to tens of millions of dollars.
“Protecting our children against the harmful effects of pornography is a high priority for all Kansans,” Kobach said in a statement. “This law is making a difference.”
As XBIZ reported, SB 394 is Kansas’ version of the age verification bills being sponsored around the country by anti-porn religious conservative activists. The bill passed 40-0 in the Kansas state Senate and 92-31 in the state House. Kansas’ Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, expressed strong reservations about the bill but ultimately decided not to veto it, allowing the legislation to become law by default without her signature.
In a statement explaining her ambivalence, Kelly said, “While well-meaning in its efforts to protect children from content the legislature considers ‘harmful to minors,’ this bill is vague in its application and may end up infringing on constitutional rights, which is an issue being litigated in other jurisdictions over similar bills.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of such bills, or at least on the level of judicial scrutiny that should be applied to their provisions, when it decides Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton. Oral arguments in that case took place Jan. 15.