Pornhub Seeks to Gag Journalists Over Child Sexual Abuse Case Files, Demands They Reveal Sources and Destroy Documents

Pornhub's parent company, Aylo, is seeking to silence journalists investigating allegations of child sexual abuse material on its platform, asking a US federal court to block publication of internal documents, force reporters to reveal their sources, and order the return or destruction of the records.

The extraordinary legal move targets the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and reporter David Kenner, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over press freedom and the right to report on court documents that were once publicly accessible.

The dispute centres on nearly 100 court exhibits that remained publicly available for almost eight months because of a filing error. Aylo sought a temporary restraining order on 29 October 2026, escalating the case into a legal battle over confidential records, journalistic protections, and the limits of corporate efforts to restrict reporting

Aylo Seeks Disclosure of Journalists' Sources

Aylo wants Kenner and ICIJ to return or destroy all materials linked to Docket 235 and stop publishing information from the exhibits, including the identities of people named in them. It also seeks details about how the journalists obtained the records, whether they shared them with third parties, and demands that they notify their sources.

The company argues that the documents contain sensitive personal information about alleged victims, class members, people seeking content removal, and employees, alongside internal communications, deposition testimony, and business records. The application followed questions Kenner sent Aylo on 21 October about the documents.

How Confidential Pornhub Documents Became Public

The dispute stems from Doe #1 v. MG Freesites Ltd, a federal class-action lawsuit brought by people who allege they appeared in Pornhub content while under 18. A filing error left 99 exhibits (235-24 to 235-122) publicly accessible from 12 September 2024 to 5 May 2025, although they were intended to remain sealed.

Aylo says 122 exhibits were filed in September 2024, but only the first 23 were properly sealed. The remaining documents included internal communications and sensitive company information.

Separately, US District Judge Wesley Hsu granted preliminary approval on 6 November 2026 to Aylo's $120 million settlement of related class actions in Alabama and California. The agreement requires government-issued ID checks to verify that video participants and uploaders are over 18, without constituting an admission of liability.

ICIJ Challenges the Proposed Publication Ban

ICIJ and Kenner oppose Aylo's application, arguing that the proposed restrictions violate First Amendment protections for free speech and the press. In a 4 November filing, their lawyers called the request an attempt at prior restraint, which prevents information from being published before it reaches the public.

They also challenged the Alabama court's jurisdiction, noting that neither is based there nor is a party to the underlying lawsuit. ICIJ additionally invoked Washington's reporter shield law to resist demands for confidential sources, saying it would vigorously defend its right to report on Aylo's business practices.

Press Freedom Advocates Criticise Aylo

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, criticised Aylo's application, arguing that journalists can publish lawfully obtained documents even if they were accidentally made public.

On 4 November, the court ordered ICIJ's previously sealed response to be unsealed. As of 7 November 2026, no ruling on Aylo's restraining order had been reported. The case raises important questions about press freedom and the right to report on accidentally disclosed court records.