Many parents are hearing the name Aylo for the first time as Canada debates Bill S-209, a bill aimed at preventing children from accessing online pornography through age verification software. Aylo is the company behind some of the world’s largest porn sites, including Pornhub, and because of that reach, its actions – and its silence – matter. When a company that profits from online pornography engages with lawmakers, or refuses to, it has real consequences for children, families, and public trust.
Bill S-209 is built on a simple idea: if a company makes money distributing pornography online, it should be responsible for ensuring children cannot access it. The bill would require porn sites to use age verification measures and gives the government enforcement tools when companies refuse to comply. For parents, the concern behind the bill is straightforward. Children are being exposed to explicit sexual content at young ages, often accidentally, and that exposure can shape expectations, attitudes, and behaviour long before a child is developmentally ready.
Aylo has argued in other countries that this approach is the wrong one. In places like the UK and parts of Europe, the company has claimed that requiring websites to verify age is ineffective and risky for privacy. Instead, Aylo promotes what it calls “protective measures” that focus on devices rather than websites; meaning phones, tablets, or computers would be restricted, and only verified adults could unlock access to adult content.
At first glance, this may sound reasonable. But it also shifts responsibility away from the companies distributing pornography and toward parents, device manufacturers, and operating systems. Bill S-209 takes a different view: the burden should sit squarely with the companies profiting from explicit content. That tension – between industry-preferred solutions and public accountability – is exactly what parliamentary committee hearings are meant to examine.
It’s also important to ask why Aylo consistently resists laws like Bill S-209 or pushes alternative approaches. Effective age-verification requirements would force companies to change how they operate. That can be expensive, slow their growth, and create legal exposure if verification systems fail. Delays and deflection allow Aylo to keep doing business as usual.
There is also a clear pattern parents should understand. In several U.S. states that have passed age verification laws, Aylo has chosen not to comply and instead blocked access to their explicit sites altogether. When regulation becomes firm, the company often withdraws rather than adapt. While this is usually framed as a privacy concern, the effect is the same: pressure on governments to soften or abandon protections, and delays in meaningful safeguards for children.
From a business standpoint, this strategy makes sense. Avoiding legal commitments, keeping expectations low, and maintaining control protects profit. But from a parent’s perspective, it raises serious concerns. When a company consistently resists oversight, limits or denies its participation in public hearings, or exits jurisdictions rather than comply with child-protection laws, it suggests that safety is being treated as optional rather than essential.
Privacy is an important part of this discussion, and it is not being ignored. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has examined age-assurance models and has previously investigated Aylo over consent and privacy concerns. The Privacy Commissioner has also appeared before Parliament to stress that child protection and privacy must work together. That kind of oversight only works, however, when companies are willing to engage openly and answer questions on the public record. Aylo is not willing – and has in fact denied requests from Canadian Parliament on numerous occasions to share insight on Bill S-209.
Committee hearings exist for a reason. They allow lawmakers to test claims, challenge assumptions, and weigh options in the open. When powerful platforms choose not to fully participate, rely on public company statements instead of testimony, or resist change altogether, parents are left carrying the burden – expected to protect children in systems designed without them in mind.
Parents deserve policies that genuinely reduce harm, respect privacy, and place responsibility where it belongs. Aylo plays a powerful role in shaping the online environments young people grow up in. That level of influence demands accountability. It is time for the Canadian government to place responsibility where it belongs: on Aylo – and for the company to face the long-awaited parliamentary audience calling for basic protections to keep children safe from explicit content.
Holly Wood
Advocacy & Research Coordinator