Washington lawmakers are weighing a proposal that could significantly change how residents access adult content online, as a bill requiring age verification for sexually explicit websites moves through the state Legislature. The measure, House Bill 2112, was heard Friday by the House Consumer Protection and Business Committee, drawing support from lawmakers across party lines while prompting strong opposition from privacy advocates, civil liberties groups, and members of the public.
At the center of the debate is how far the state should go to prevent minors from being exposed to adult material online—and whether mandatory age verification systems can achieve that goal without creating new risks for adults’ privacy and free expression.
If approved, the legislation would place Washington among roughly two dozen states that have passed or are considering similar laws. The move would be notable because Washington would become one of the few Democratic-led states to enact such restrictions, reflecting a broader national shift in how states approach online child protection.
Legislation Draws From Texas Law Upheld by Supreme Court
House Bill 2112 is sponsored by Rep. Mari Leavitt, a Democrat from University Place. The bill is modeled after a Texas statute that has already been challenged in court and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, a legal precedent supporters say strengthens the proposal’s chances of surviving constitutional scrutiny.
Leavitt told lawmakers the bill is aimed at addressing the ease with which children can currently access explicit material online.
“It’s about protecting our children online where the dangers are increasingly inherent,” Leavitt said during the committee hearing.
She cited research from the American College of Pediatricians that links early exposure to pornography with a range of potential harms, including anxiety, depression, and increased sexual promiscuity among minors. Supporters argue that requiring proof of age would create a stronger barrier between children and content intended strictly for adults.
Public Testimony Dominated by Opposition
While the bill has bipartisan support within the Legislature, public testimony painted a different picture. Of the approximately 50 people who signed up to testify at Friday’s hearing, most spoke against the proposal, raising concerns about privacy, data security, and the scope of the bill’s language.
Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Lavender Rights Project, and the Northwest Progressive Institute urged lawmakers to reject the measure. Tee Sannon, speaking on behalf of the ACLU, said that although there is widespread agreement on the importance of protecting children online, mandatory age verification introduces serious risks.
Requiring users to submit government-issued identification to access online content, Sannon said, “creates serious privacy and security risks.” Unlike showing an ID at a physical store, she argued, online age verification requires transmitting sensitive information that could be stored, mishandled, or exposed through data breaches.
“These risks will deter people from accessing lawful content online, and it will also push them towards noncompliant, harmful websites like we’re seeing in the U.K.,” Sannon said.
Concerns Raised Over LGBTQ+ Content and Free Expression
Opponents also warned that the bill’s definition of material “harmful to minors,” which relies in part on community standards, could have unintended consequences for LGBTQ+ communities.
Sannon told lawmakers that similar standards have historically labeled LGBTQ+ content as sexual by default, even when the material is educational or supportive. She said the bill could restrict access to important online resources for LGBTQ+ youth who often rely on the internet for information and connection.
Robert Zinchak of StopKOCSA.com echoed those concerns, arguing that the legislation could extend beyond explicit content.
“This bill is a book-burning bill dressed up as safety,” Zinchak said, warning that adult-oriented artwork, books, and other lawful forms of expression could be affected.
Data Collection and Effectiveness Questioned
Another recurring concern during testimony focused on the role of data brokers and third-party age verification providers. Zinchak told lawmakers that companies involved in age verification stand to profit significantly from collecting user data.
“If you give data to a data broker, they are going to sell it,” Zinchak said. “They are going to breach it. It does not matter what you put in this legislation. That is what is going to happen.”
Critics also questioned how effective the law would be, noting that age verification systems can be bypassed through tools such as virtual private networks, or VPNs, potentially limiting the bill’s real-world impact.
Supporters Say Privacy Can Be Protected
Groups backing the bill include the HART Recovery Institute, Exodus Cry, and the Age Verification Providers Association. Supporters argue that modern technology makes it possible to confirm a user’s age without permanently storing personal information.
Iain Corby, representing the Age Verification Providers Association, addressed lawmakers’ questions during the hearing, stating that verification data would not be retained unless legally required. He said information is typically deleted within 24 hours to prevent misuse.
“The essence of age verification is proving your age without disclosing your identity,” Corby said. “And frankly, that’s not that hard to do in this world of modern technology. If American technology can put a man on the moon, then it’s perfectly capable of allowing you to prove you’re over 18 without risking your privacy.”
Corby also emphasized that users would not be required to verify their age simply to use social media platforms. Instead, verification would only be triggered when attempting to access adult content hosted on those sites.
Enforcement and Penalties Detailed in Proposal
Under House Bill 2112, enforcement authority would rest with the Washington state attorney general’s office. The bill allows for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for websites found to be operating in violation of the law.
Additional fines of up to $10,000 per violation could be imposed on sites that improperly retain identifying information collected during the age verification process.
If the legislation is approved, it would take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, currently scheduled to conclude on March 12.
