For the second time this year, the United Kingdom’s “porn block” law, which as been delayed repeatedly since it was passed in 2017, appears likely to be delayed yet again, this time with no date for the troubled “age verification” system to be put in place, according to a report by Britain’s Sky News on Wednesday. 

The law has been scheduled to take effect on July 15, but has been attacked by critics as a “privacy time bomb,” as AVN.com reported,  for its requirement that users upload sensitive personal documents to prove that they are over 18 years old and thus eligible to view online porn.

The law had previously been scheduled for implementation on April 1, but that date was scrapped with just three days to go. Before that, the U.K. government had pledged to put the country-wide porn block into effect by the end of 2018, but that obviously did not happen either.

According to Sky, “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Secretary Jeremy Wright is expected to announce the climbdown in Parliament on Thursday,” and the British Board of Film Classification—the agency charged with overseeing the age-verification system—was informed on Wednesday that the July 15 implementation date had been scrapped."

The delay comes after the Digital Policy Alliance, a lobbying group representing online porn sites, send a memo to the BBFC calling for the law to be pushed back because of privacy concerns that had not been addressed, according to The Mirror newspaper. The DPA warned that in its current state the age verification system, which is left to individual porn sites to put in place themselves, would lead to "nefarious" operators online taking the “opportunity to harvest and manipulate user data.”

The DPA memo asked that the law be delayed until October 15, but according to the Sky report, the new delay will be “indefinite.”

Photo By Tim Reckmann / Wikimedia Commons 

NEW YORK—In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sex toy manufacturer Dame Products has sued the NY Metro Transit Authority for what it described as a "sexist double-standard favoring male interests" because the Authority rejected Dame ads depicting female pleasure products.

Dame begins its Complaint with a "Preliminary Statement" which details what a typical individual subway rider would see both in the subway car and on the walls of the station when exiting. It notes ads for erectile dysfunction meds featuring cactuses; foil "Kyng-size" condom packets; "female libido medication" with an image of a female with exposed midriff; ads for the Museum of Sex; breast enlargement ads featuring women clutching tangerines to their tiny breasts and grapefruits to their enlarged ones—and several others.

"But what you do not see in the subway car, in the station, or anywhere else around you are advertisements for Plaintiff Dame Products ('Dame'), which manufactures tasteful, innovative, and widely-praised tools for women’s sexual wellness," the complaint reads. "You do not see Dame’s advertisements because the MTA—in contravention of the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and common sense—has banned them from being displayed on MTA property."

Dame has been trying to gets ads for its products posted in NY subways and on buses and other Authority-owned venues since July of 2018, and sent six sample ads to the MTA, but after a slow response from the Authority and, eventually, requests to eliminate references to "trails" and "tunnels" from the images and text, Dame made alterations to its ads—only to have the Authority reject those also because they allegedly "entangle the MTA and its service and customers with the promoted product"—apparently exactly as the boner pill and condom ads would!

"The MTA’s decision to reject Dame’s advertisements reflects no legitimate principle of law. Instead, it reveals the MTA’s sexism, its decision to privilege male interests in its advertising choices, and its fundamental misunderstanding of Dame’s products, which have transformed the sexual health and wellness of more than 100,000 consumers," the complaint states. "In 2019, the MTA’s Victorian view of female sexuality and the First Amendment cannot stand. The MTA’s censorship of Dame’s advertisements cannot stand. All New Yorkers—and all women—deserve better."

The lawsuit targets not only the MTA but also Janno Lieber, the chief development officer and president of MTA Capital Construction, who is alleged to be "responsible for adopting, creating, and enforcing the policies and practices of the MTA, including the MTA Advertising Policy," and Pat Foye, chairman and chief executive officer of the MTA, and is "responsible for adopting, creating, and enforcing the policies and practices of the MTA, including the MTA Advertising Policy."

Referring to itself as "a groundbreaking company that has revolutionized the sex toy industry in just four years since its inception," Dame notes that its ads already appear in kiosks and at bus stops throughout the city, and are in several New York magazines and media outlets including The New York Times, Vanity Fair and Forbes.

The complaint also notes that, "Dame was founded to address fundamental inequalities between men and women in heterosexual encounters," stating that while "cisgendered men 'usually' or 'always' have orgasms during sex... only thirty-nine percent of cisgendered women said the same," and that "forty-three percent of women suffer from some kind of sexual dysfunction, compared with only thirty-one percent of men."

"Dame seeks to level the playing field by designing products that can make sex equally enjoyable for men and women," the complaint states, and much of the complaint contains descriptions of Dame pleasure products and how they work, as well as some of the ads it created to promote its products.

According to the complaint, Dame executives had many conversations with Howard Marcus of OUTFRONT Media, which handles subway advertising for the MTA, and for nearly a year, Marcus strung the company along, requesting changes in ad text and images—and finally rejecting everything Dame offered. Marcus maintained this position even after Dame provided images of several ads from other companies with similar offerings that OUTFRONT/MTA had deemed acceptable and allowed to be posted.

After rejection after rejection, Dame received a memo from Lieber stating, in part, "After a careful review, the MTA determined that the proposed ads promote a sexually oriented business, which has long been prohibited by the MTA’s advertising standards. Under these advertising standards, which have been established by the MTA Board, the MTA and its advertising contractors do not accept for display on MTA properties any advertisement that does not comply with any of our specific standards; these standards are applied evenly to all genders and are posted online on the MTA’s website..."

This distinction was clearly bogus, based on the advertising examples Dame had provided, and after trying to compromise with MTA officials, the company decided to file suit for loss of revenue due to the ban, and sex discrimination. One section of Dame's complaint summarizes the discrimination the company has suffered from MTA by noting, "The MTA Has Long Embraced Advertisements That Are Visually Explicit, Sexually Suggestive, or That Promote Sexually Oriented Businesses," and providing more than two dozen images of several sexually suggestive ads that did pass muster with the Authority.

Specifically, the Complaint charges that the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §1983, a law prohibiting the government or its agents from depriving any citizen or entity of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution or applicable laws, and further charges that under that same Code section and the Fourteenth Amendment, the MTA's policies on advertising are unconstitutionally vague and violate the equal protection clauses of that same amendment.

"The MTA intentionally treated Plaintiff differently than similarly situated businesses whose advertisements have been approved and displayed on MTA Property," the Complaint charges. "These businesses are applicable comparators for purposes of assessing the irrational discrimination at issue in this case.

"Unlike other businesses that market sexually-oriented products—like hims (erectile dysfunction medication), Roman (erectile dysfunction medication and condoms), hers (women’s libido medication), the Museum of Sex, and OkCupid (dating and hookup service), Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to display its advertisements on MTA Property," the Complaint adds. "Plaintiff, hims, Roman, hers, the Museum of Sex, and OkCupid all market sexually-oriented products and are identically situated with respect to Defendant MTA."

The complaint also charges that the MTA's stated policies violate the free speech clause of the New York State Constitution.

In sum, Dame is seeking an injunction to allow its ads to be posted in subways, compensatory damages which will be determined at trial, and attorney fees.

The text of the lawsuit may be found here.