Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, and Bellesa must proceed to trial in separate legal complaints alleging violations of state and federal online privacy laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act. These cases involve the use of commonly deployed digital marketing software, such as Google Analytics.

Aylo Faces "Mini-Trial" Over Arbitration Clause

On July 17, U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu issued a civil minutes order requiring Aylo to face a "mini-trial." This proceeding will determine whether claims brought by plaintiffs Scott Adair, Kent Henderson, and Tarris Wallace can be resolved through private arbitration, as stipulated in Aylo's terms of service. Aylo's terms require users to engage in binding arbitration for disputes, and the Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply to this agreement.

The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from Miller Shah LLP and Carroll Shamberg LLC, filed a proposed class action before the Los Angeles Superior Court. Aylo subsequently removed the case to the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that Aylo violated its terms of service by using "third-party tracking technologies" on its websites, despite disclosures of such software by Aylo. These technologies include Google Analytics and trackers developed by Aylo for user experience data collection and content recommendations.

Judge Hsu's order denied Aylo's motion to compel arbitration due to a factual dispute regarding whether the plaintiffs created user accounts and thereby agreed to Aylo's terms and conditions. Aylo's attorneys have argued that simply visiting Pornhub.com and its websites constitutes usage. However, Judge Hsu stated, "On this record, therefore, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether plaintiffs intentionally created the accounts." He ordered a trial on the "narrow question of whether plaintiffs intentionally created the ... accounts in question" to determine if they are bound by the arbitration agreement.

Adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein explained that Aylo could prevail in such a trial, citing the 2012 federal case In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. This case addressed similar claims and found that Zappos's terms and conditions were not legally binding because they were difficult to locate and read, and the company could change them without notice. The ruling emphasized that businesses must clearly present website terms and cannot unilaterally alter them without notice. This led to the development of "browsewrap agreements" and "clickwrap agreements."

Hsu's order for a "narrow" trial aims to determine if the plaintiffs agreed to the terms of service by website usage or account creation, and whether Aylo employs a clearly defined browsewrap or clickwrap agreement. Browsewraps feature agreements at the bottom of a webpage, while clickwraps require users to take an affirmative action, such as clicking a checkbox, to consent. Silverstein noted that courts assess whether users received "reasonably conspicuous notice" of terms and "clearly manifest agreement." He added that "merely posting terms somewhere on a site is not enough," and that links and notices should be prominent, placed near registration or access buttons, and require an affirmative user step. Courts also examine proof of user acceptance and whether terms unfairly permit unilateral changes by the operator. A spokesperson for Aylo declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. No date has been set for the "narrow" trial.

Bellesa to Face Claims Including ECPA Violations

U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California ruled that Bellesa Productions and its U.S. affiliate must face claims in a proposed class action. This lawsuit alleges that users' personal data and porn viewing behaviors were shared through Google's marketing pipelines without consent. Similar to the Aylo case, the plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state online privacy laws. Judge Kronstadt determined that the plaintiffs effectively pleaded claims of negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.

The judge's decision also narrowed the application of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in similar litigation. Lawrence Walters, an adult industry attorney, described this as a "meaningful defense victory on the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) claim," noting that Judge Kronstadt adopted a stricter "nexus" interpretation of "consumer" status. The VPPA, enacted in 1988, prohibits video rental businesses from sharing customer data with third parties without consent. Walters stated that the judge held "that registration alone does not suffice when some video content remains freely accessible to unregistered visitors." However, Bellesa still faces ECPA and state claims.

Walters observed that "for adult platforms, the opinion reinforces that user privacy expectations are heightened with sexually explicit content." He emphasized that "clear, conspicuous and accurate disclosures about tracking technologies are not merely best practices—they are increasingly the difference between early dismissal and costly discovery or settlement pressure." Walters advised platforms to audit pixel implementations, revise privacy policies and terms, and consider narrowing or better documenting data-sharing arrangements. Christopher A. Lisy, an attorney for Bellesa, did not respond to a request for comment.

Broader Litigation Trends

Beyond Aylo and Bellesa, separate federal class action lawsuits were filed last summer against at least two other adult entertainment platforms: the parent companies of Kink.com and RedGIFs. These lawsuits collectively allege violations of federal and state law due to the sharing of user viewing and web behaviors with Google's tracking and marketing tools. Neither Google nor its parent company, Alphabet, is named as a defendant in these cases. Litigation is ongoing in all four cases. The volume of court actions and arbitration proceedings remains high, with California courts handling the majority of cases involving website tracking technologies such as cookies, pixels, session replay, and analytics tools. Plaintiffs are expanding their focus to include generative artificial intelligence (AI) and chatbot tools, alleging these systems "listen" to or repurpose user inputs without consent. Federal courts are increasingly requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate an "injury-in-fact" to establish standing for federal claims.

Key Facts

  • Aylo and Bellesa must face trial in separate lawsuits alleging online privacy violations.
  • Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state and federal laws.
  • Aylo faces a "mini-trial" to determine if plaintiffs are bound by an arbitration agreement in its terms of service.
  • Bellesa must face claims including negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
  • The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) claim against Bellesa was narrowed, with the judge adopting a stricter interpretation of "consumer" status.
  • Similar lawsuits have been filed against the parent companies of Kink.com and RedGIFs.