Indiana Age Verification Law: SB 17 Requirements Explained

Indiana's age-verification law for adult content, Senate Bill 17, took effect July 1, 2024. A First Amendment challenge to the law was resolved in the state's favor after the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, but a separate state enforcement lawsuit against Pornhub's parent company began in December 2025 and remains active.

What Indiana's Age-Verification Law Requires

Senate Bill 17, enacted in 2024 and codified at Indiana Code section 24-4-23 et seq., took effect July 1, 2024. It applies where at least one-third of the images and videos published on a covered website depict material harmful to minors, a threshold phrased around published content rather than the percentage of pages a visitor views, a distinction worth noting since several other states use the pages-viewed formulation instead. Indiana enforces the law two ways. Private suits come in two forms, with different plaintiffs and different remedies: under Indiana Code section 24-4-23-11 the parent or guardian of a minor who accessed the site may recover either actual damages or statutory damages of up to $5,000, plus injunctive relief and attorney's fees, while under section 24-4-23-12 any person may sue for injunctive relief and fees but not for damages. Separately, section 24-4-23-15 lets the attorney general bring an action for an injunction, a civil penalty of not more than $250,000, and the state's reasonable investigation and litigation costs, and section 24-4-23-16 empowers the attorney general to issue civil investigative demands under IC 4-6-3-3.

The chapter also regulates the verification data itself. Section 24-4-23-13 bars an operator, and any third-party verification service it uses, from retaining the identifying information of a person seeking access unless a court order requires retention, and it gives an individual whose information was retained in violation of that rule a separate action for either actual damages or damages of up to $5,000, plus injunctive relief and fees. Section 24-4-23-14 requires operators to use commercially reasonable methods to secure all information collected and transmitted under the chapter.

The Constitutional Challenge: Free Speech Coalition v. Rokita

Adult-industry plaintiffs, including Free Speech Coalition, Inc., challenged SB 17 in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Rokita in the Southern District of Indiana. A preliminary injunction issued around June 28, 2024, but the Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction effective August 16, 2024, allowing Indiana to enforce the law while the appeal proceeded.

After the Supreme Court decided Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton on June 27, 2025, upholding Texas's similar law and settling intermediate scrutiny as the controlling standard, the Seventh Circuit reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction against SB 17, confirmed directly through The Indiana Lawyer's coverage of the case, a second and distinct appellate action beyond the court's earlier 2024 stay. The Indiana plaintiffs, including Aylo Freesites Ltd. and Aylo Premium Ltd., then moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims, and the district court granted that motion, dismissing all of Aylo's claims with prejudice. This research confirmed the grant of dismissal itself but did not independently pin down the exact date the court entered that order, so this page states the dismissal as a confirmed fact while hedging only the specific date.

A Second, Separate, and Still-Active Case: Indiana v. Aylo

Indiana's litigation story does not end with the constitutional challenge. On December 3, 2025, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a new lawsuit, State of Indiana v. Aylo Freesites Ltd., Aylo Group Ltd., Aylo Premium Ltd. et al., in Marion Superior Court, Case No. 49D05-2512-PL-057061. The suit alleges Aylo, Pornhub's parent company, is failing to implement reasonable age verification in Indiana in violation of the state's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. SB 17 itself separately authorizes attorney general enforcement under Indiana Code section 24-4-23-15, so this suit is not evidence that the chapter lacks a state enforcement mechanism.

That case was still in its early stages and active as of this research, and its outcome was not yet known. Because of this second case, calling Indiana's age-verification litigation fully resolved understates what is actually happening: the constitutional fight over SB 17's validity is over, but a live enforcement dispute over whether Aylo is actually complying is ongoing.

Why This Distinction Matters for Readers

The difference between these two cases is not just legal trivia. A reader who hears that Indiana's age-verification law survived a court challenge should not assume every covered site is actually following it. The Attorney General's own December 2025 lawsuit against Aylo is itself evidence that at least one major operator is alleged, by the state, not to be complying, more than a year after the law took effect. Whether that specific dispute resolves through a settlement, a court ruling, or something else was not yet known as of this research, and the underlying enforcement suit is a separate matter from SB 17's own constitutional validity, which the Seventh Circuit's reversal and vacatur of the injunction and the district court's grant of dismissal with prejudice have already resolved in the state's favor.

Verified against The Indiana Lawyer's direct coverage of the Seventh Circuit's reversal and vacatur of the Free Speech Coalition v. Rokita injunction, the district court's grant of dismissal with prejudice, Attorney General Rokita's separate enforcement suit against Aylo, and a compliance tracker for SB 17, current as of 2026-08-13. The exact date the district court entered the dismissal order was not independently confirmed and is not stated as a specific date on this page; the status of State of Indiana v. Aylo should be reconfirmed before relying on it, since the case was newly filed as of this research.

Related Resources

• Age Verification Laws by State
• Texas Age Verification Law
• Kansas Age Verification Law
• Mississippi Age Verification Law

---

Last updated: 2026-08-13.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is porn banned in Indiana?

No. SB 17 requires covered websites to verify a visitor's age before granting access; it does not prohibit adults from viewing the material once verified.

What law requires age verification in Indiana?

Senate Bill 17 (2024), codified at Indiana Code section 24-4-23 et seq., effective July 1, 2024.

Was Indiana's age-verification law struck down in court?

No. A preliminary injunction was stayed by the Seventh Circuit in 2024, and after the Supreme Court upheld a similar Texas law in 2025, the Seventh Circuit reversed and vacated that injunction and the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their case with prejudice. The law remains in effect.

Is Indiana's age-verification litigation completely over?

The constitutional challenge to SB 17 is resolved, but Indiana's Attorney General filed a separate enforcement lawsuit against Aylo, Pornhub's parent company, in December 2025, alleging it is not actually complying with the law. That case was still active as of this research.

Who can sue over a violation of Indiana's law?

Three different parties can, with different remedies. The parent or guardian of a minor who accessed the site can sue under Indiana Code section 24-4-23-11 for either actual damages or statutory damages of up to $5,000, plus injunctive relief and attorney's fees. Any person can sue under section 24-4-23-12, but only for injunctive relief and fees, not damages. The attorney general can sue under section 24-4-23-15 for an injunction, a civil penalty of not more than $250,000, and the state's reasonable costs.

Does Indiana regulate app stores under a separate law?

No Indiana App Store Accountability Act was found in this research.