Advertising standards and age policy
Adult advertising sits inside a real legal perimeter, and a site that recommends where to buy it should say where that perimeter runs. This page sets out who the content here is written for, which categories of offer will never get a link from this site whatever the commission, and which laws govern the placements discussed on the comparison pages. It is the standard I hold the site to, and it is also a rough checklist for anyone planning their own campaigns.
Who this site is for
Everything published here is written for people aged 18 or over, or the age of majority in their jurisdiction where that is higher, who buy advertising as part of a business. It is trade material about ad networks, bid models and reporting, not adult entertainment. No sexually explicit imagery is published on this site, and none of the pages link directly into adult content.
Access is not age-gated behind a verification wall because there is nothing here that requires one. If you arrived expecting adult content rather than advertising infrastructure, this is the wrong site.
What will never get a link
The commercial arrangements described on the affiliate disclosure page have a floor beneath them. No commission changes any of the following.
Anything involving minors. No platform, offer, creative strategy or targeting technique connected to sexual content involving people under 18 will ever be described, linked or explained here, in any framing. Material of that kind is a crime, not a vertical, and the correct response to encountering it is a report to law enforcement rather than a policy paragraph.
Non-consensual material. Platforms that knowingly monetise revenge content, hidden-camera material or leaked private imagery are out, regardless of what their licence paperwork says.
Traffic sellers posing as ad networks. Services that deliver a count of "visitors" for a flat fee with no bid, no placement reporting and no postback are excluded from the comparison entirely. That is a product-quality judgement rather than a moral one, and the reasoning is set out on the home page.
Techniques for evading age verification. Where state and national age-assurance laws apply, this site does not publish workarounds for them. The age-verification section exists to explain how the rules have changed which inventory is available, not how to route around them.
The laws that actually govern this
US federal record-keeping. Advertising creatives that depict real performers in sexually explicit conduct fall under 18 U.S.C. 2257 record-keeping obligations. The obligation follows the producer of the material, and it applies regardless of which state a viewer is in and regardless of any state age-verification statute. If your creatives use real performers rather than illustration, your records need to exist before your campaign does.
State age-verification statutes. Roughly 25 US states had age-verification laws in force as of late July 2026, following the Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton on 27 June 2025. The practical effect on media buying, including which inventory disappeared and where the audience went instead, is covered on the home page.
Advertising disclosure rules. Commercial relationships behind recommendations are governed in the United States by the FTC's endorsement guidance and the underlying rules at 16 CFR Part 255. That is the standard this site's disclosure is written against, and it is the same standard that applies to your own landing pages if you run comparison content.
Platform terms. Beyond statute, every network on the comparison has its own creative policy, and those are frequently stricter than the law. Creative rejection is the single most common practical complaint about adult networks, which is why the recommendation on the home page is to submit one creative for approval before funding an account heavily.
How I apply this to the comparison itself
Networks are described by what their documentation says they do, including the parts that make them look worse. Where an operator publishes no policy on fraud refunds, the page says that no policy is published rather than leaving a flattering silence. Where documented user evidence describes a recurring problem, it is attributed as evidence with a date rather than presented as a verdict. The routine behind that is on how I check networks.
These standards form part of the conditions of use set out in the terms and conditions, and the sourcing rules that sit behind every claim are on the editorial policy page.
Reporting something
If you believe content linked from this site breaches any of the lines above, write to the editorial address listed on the contact page with the specific URL. Links that turn out to breach these standards are removed rather than annotated, and the removal is not negotiable regardless of the commercial relationship attached to them.
These standards belong to one named person rather than a compliance department, which is the point of the about page. Data handling for readers of this site is separate from all of the above and is covered by the privacy policy and the cookie policy, and the sitemap indexes every page these standards apply to.