In a striking departure from standard legislative procedure, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has announced a proposed consumer protection regulation that would impose sweeping age verification requirements on websites hosting pornographic or adult sexual content—without passage by the state legislature.

The new rule, 15 CSR 60-17.010, was introduced Wednesday under the authority of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), a state consumer protection law. Bailey framed the move as a necessary response to protect minors from online material deemed “harmful,” asserting that “Missouri is leading the way by going beyond surface-level protections.”

The regulation proposes a “dual-level” verification system, a novel concept not seen in other U.S. state-level AV laws, requiring both:

• Website-level verification, and
• Device-level verification at the operating system level.

This approach would obligate adult sites, search engines, and mobile operating system providers to implement mechanisms ensuring only users 18 and over can access pornographic content.

“This is the most robust age-verification standard in the country,” Bailey’s office stated in a press release. “We are closing loopholes that allow minors to bypass protections.”

• “Harmful to minors” websites must implement commercially reasonable age verification technologies.
• Search engines must blur or restrict access to explicit content unless the user is verified as an adult.
• Mobile OS providers must offer device-level age verification tools accessible to adult content websites.
• Sites and providers violating the rule could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.
• Websites must ensure the immediate deletion of age verification data, a provision raising concerns due to its technical complexity and feasibility.

Bailey’s decision bypasses the traditional legislative process where multiple age verification bills are currently under debate in the Missouri General Assembly. Among those efforts are proposals by Rep. Sherri Gallick (R-Belton) and Sen. Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville). However, previous attempts have stalled due to bipartisan concerns about privacy and free speech rights.

Civil liberties advocates and legal scholars have sharply criticized Bailey’s action.

“This appears to be a massive power grab and a distortion of both the legislative process and Missourians’ First Amendment protections,” said Mike Stabile, Director of Public Policy at the Free Speech Coalition.

“It would create unconstitutional law out of whole cloth, completely bypassing the state legislature,” added Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment attorney. “This sets a dangerous precedent of legislating by executive fiat.”

Corey Silverstein, another attorney specializing in adult content law, said Bailey has “tipped the balance of power.” “The authority to make laws in Missouri rests with the state’s legislative branch,” Silverstein continued. “This is not the role of an attorney general.”

The proposed rule would impose unprecedented burdens not just on adult websites but also on:

• Search engines, such as Google and Bing,
• Content platforms like Reddit or Discord,
• Device manufacturers like Apple and Samsung.

Mike Stabile suggested that major tech firms may challenge the rule, particularly the provision compelling search engines to restrict access based on subjective assessments of content.

“That could be viewed as compelled speech,” said Larry Walters, “and would raise separate First Amendment concerns.”

Bailey’s proposal also lacks clarity on how device-level verification would be technically implemented or enforced, especially given the absence of interoperable systems for secure, privacy-preserving age checks across devices and platforms.

Bailey’s regulation emerges amid a wave of state-level AV laws across the U.S., with Louisiana, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and others enacting statutes that have faced federal constitutional challenges.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Texas struck down a similar law, ruling it an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Bailey’s regulation is subject to a mandatory public comment period before it can take effect. Legal experts anticipate challenges not only on First Amendment grounds but also on questions of the scope of the attorney general’s authority under the MMPA.

“This would be a different kind of legal fight,” Silverstein said. “Not just about free speech, but about the executive branch overstepping its role.”