2:05CV000485 (D. Utah 2012), was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software.

Among other provisions, the bill required the Utah Attorney General to maintain an "adult content registry" of internet websites that contained material deemed "harmful to minors."

[2] The complaint also cited various cases in which courts in Michigan, New York, Arizona, and other states had struck down laws applying criminal penalties for "distributing harmful materials to minors" to the internet as unconstitutional,[12] including the United States Supreme Court case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union which struck down a federal version of the law on First Amendment Grounds.

[2] The complaint also contained declarations from various organizations and individuals, including The King's English bookstore, Nathan Florence and the ACLU of Utah explaining the adverse impact of the law on their business.

[14] Defendants stated that the requirement for ISPs to provide their customers with filtering mechanisms for "pornographic materials" was the most effective means of preventing minors from accessing pornography on the internet.

Utah further argued that the filtering requirement ensured that the law was narrowly tailored in order to achieve a "compelling government interest."

[15] The case was hailed as a "crucial victory for free speech," by the Media Coalition, while the ACLU stated that this order "...removes the cloud cast over internet speech that Utah's broadly worded statute had created," and the Center for Democracy and Technology stated that the judgment brought "...Utah law into line with 15 years of legal precedent protecting the constitutional rights of adults to access lawful content online.