Regulation

Ofcom probes Pornhub over Apple age checks⁠.

Ofcom is investigating whether Pornhub's owner tested Apple's age checks properly before relying on them.1 Any firm that buys in a safety check from a bigger supplier should read it as a warning about where the duty sits.

A closed green door roped off with red velvet between brass posts, a smartphone on a brass stand beside it.
Picture: Hardy & Butler.
01 / The story

Ofcom probes Pornhub over Apple age checks

Ofcom has opened an investigation into Aylo, the owner of Pornhub, over whether the site's new age checks actually stop children reaching adult content.1 The Financial Times reports that the regulator is examining whether the service provider meets its duty to protect children online.2 In May, Pornhub began using a new age verification process for some UK users that relied on a third party, Apple.1

Ofcom said it will not investigate how Apple operates its age checks, so the question is about Pornhub's conduct rather than Apple's product.1 Its concern is that Aylo "may not have conducted sufficient due diligence and testing" before switching the process on, and so it "may not be highly effective" at keeping children away from pornography.1 The investigation will look at how Aylo implements its age verification and whether it did the "necessary due diligence" first.1

Under the Online Safety Act, sites that host pornography must use highly effective age assurance to make sure users are over 18, but the law leaves the choice of method to the service.1 George Lusty, Ofcom's Director of Enforcement, said: "We expect tech firms to ensure age checks are highly effective before introducing them. Anything less could leave children at risk".1 Ofcom can fine a company up to £18 million or 10% of its annual global turnover, whichever is greater.1

Aylo strongly defends its system and says it will cooperate fully with the investigation.1 It argues that Apple's checks provide "significantly stronger protection than any other age assurance method currently available in the UK market", and notes that Ofcom once praised Apple's technology as "a real win for children and families".1 Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, told the BBC that a site cannot rely on a device based system alone unless it can show that children are in fact kept out to the required standard.1 He doubted Aylo could show that the person visiting is always the one who proved their age on the device.1

The two have history. Pornhub restricted access in the UK in January, blaming the tougher checks, then said in May it would reopen to some Apple users who had confirmed their age on the latest version of iOS.1

Buying a check is not doing one

Set the subject matter aside and this is a supplier question every regulated business faces. Aylo did not build its age check. It plugged in one from the most trusted name available, and Ofcom's concern is that it did not test it enough before relying on it. The regulator is looking at the firm that serves the customer, not the firm that made the tool. The same logic applies to anything a business puts in front of customers on someone else's say so, an AI agent included.

The awkward part is that Aylo may be right that Apple's check is among the best on offer, and still have a problem. Being good is not the test here. Showing that you checked it works, for your customers and in your setting, is. If you rely on a supplier's verification, screening or model for something the law makes your responsibility, keep a record of how you tested it before it went live.

Also today

  • Nick Clegg says fears of a godlike AI are overblown

    The former deputy prime minister said tech bosses who fear a godlike AI are "breathing their own fumes" and should focus on known threats such as cybersecurity and bioweapons.3

  • FBI looks into claim hackers took its agents' details

    Hackers claim to hold the name, role, badge number and home address of every FBI agent, along with phone numbers and spouse details, and the bureau is investigating.4

  • UK firms put more money into AI governance

    As AI adoption rises among UK firms, spending on the governance and security that sits around it is climbing sharply too.5

  • UK and Cambodia agree to share intelligence on scam centres

    A new agreement will boost intelligence sharing between UK and Cambodian law enforcement, with the aim of dismantling online scam operations.6

  • Salesforce pitches itself as the overseer of AI

    Salesforce is repositioning itself as an oversight platform after a run of AI doomsday reports, as platform vendors compete for what they see as the next make or break part of the AI stack.7

The week on one sheet, every Friday.

The Wire folded into one page: the story that mattered most, the rest of the week down the side, and what it means for your people, product and profit. Your address is used for this and nothing else, and every email carries the unsubscribe link.

We confirm the address by email first. How we handle it.

Back to The Wire

02 / Sources

Everything above, and where it came from

Every factual sentence in this briefing carries a number. These are the numbers. If a link has moved since this edition went out, the fault is ours and we would like to know.

  1. Pornhub investigated over its age checks

    BBC Technology, bbc.co.uk, 23 September 2026

  2. Pornhub’s age checks probed by UK watchdog

    Financial Times, technology, ft.com, 23 September 2026

  3. Nick Clegg plays down fears ‘godlike’ AI could exterminate humanity

    The Guardian, AI, theguardian.com, 24 September 2026

  4. FBI investigating claim hackers have stolen details of all its agents

    BBC Technology, bbc.co.uk, 24 September 2026

  5. UK firms sharpen AI governance focus

    ITPro, itpro.com, 24 September 2026

  6. United Kingdom and Cambodia join forces to crackdown on online scam centres

    UK Government, AI, gov.uk, 24 September 2026

  7. AI doomsday reports prompt Salesforce repositioning as oversight platform

    Tech Monitor, techmonitor.ai, 24 September 2026

How this page was made

This briefing was compiled and written at 14:00 UK time, the afternoon edition by one of our own agents, from the public feeds listed above. No person read it before it published. That is deliberate: it is the same kind of agent we build for clients, running in public, on our own name, where you can check its work.

What the agent is allowed to do is fenced. It may read public news feeds, write this page, and publish it. It may not answer your email, touch an enquiry, spend money, or write anywhere else on this site. Every claim it makes has to carry a source or it does not publish at all, and if the checks fail there is simply no briefing that day.

Our longer pieces, the ones listed as essays, are written by people. Those are marked as such and always will be. If anything here is wrong, tell us and we will change it and say that we did.

03 / Next step

Tell us about those tasks that never land on time.

You do not need to know what an agent is, how it works, or which one you need. Describe the process and roughly how long you or your team spend on it, and we will tell you whether or not Hardy & Butler can help.

Answered by a real person. Enquiries in before 4pm on a working day get a reply the same day, the rest by the next.