Financial discrimination in the Sex Industry: how banking and payment systems exclude sex workers

Financial discrimination in the Sex Industry: banking, platforms and payment processors 

Access to financial institutions such as bank accounts and payment processors is fundamental to participation in modern society. As the labour market becomes increasingly digital, the ability to send and receive payments online is essential for many forms of work.

A survey of 117 online sex workers found that most relied on multiple digital platforms for income, such as subscription sites, clip stores and live platforms that facilitate live video calls. However, financial institutions increasingly exclude sex workers from the labour market, with workers across multiple jurisdictions reporting account closures, blocked payments and the denial of financial services (Cheles-McLean, 2024)

This phenomenon of financial discrimination involves individuals being excluded from financial systems because their work is categorised as ‘high risk’ by financial institutions. Research demonstrates that this discrimination affects sex workers across multiple platforms and payment systems.

Recent studies have demonstrated that banks, payment processors, and financial systems increasingly restrict or terminate services associated with adult content (Blunt & Wolf, 2020; Cheles-McLean, 2024; Franco, 2024). These restrictions can include the closure of bank accounts, barriers to payment processors and a loss of access to digital platforms.  

In Stardust et al.’s research, one worker notes how they had lost access to three payment processors in three months whilst attempting to start a new business. This worker had transitioned to online work during the COVID-19 pandemic and experienced constant barriers to accessing payment services (Stardust et al, 2023). The research demonstrates this is not a one-off issue but a pattern that shapes how sex workers undertake their work online. 

Digital Platforms and the transformation of Sex Work 

The internet has significantly reshaped the organisation of sex work over the past two decades. Digital platforms enable workers to advertise services, communicate with clients, distribute content, engage in new forms of sex work, and receive payments online.

Literature and research have noted that this can increase safety and autonomy. Studies show that workers have greater control and choice in their work, including the ability to screen clients, verify identities, and control their working hours and interactions (Cunningham, DeAngelo, and Tripp, 2019; Cowen & Colosi, 2021; Sanders et al., 2018).

However, digital platforms rely heavily on financial intermediaries such as banks and payment processors. Visa and Mastercard underpin the majority of online transactions, while banks provide the accounts that allow platforms to operate.

Furthermore, processors such as PayPal and Cashapp allow for individual private interactions. Therefore, financial institutions occupy a powerful position within the digital labour market. Scholars increasingly highlight the significant influence payment processors exert on the regulation and guidelines governing online content.

Platforms that rely on payment networks must comply with those networks' policies. Often, these providers either prohibit or increasingly restrict adult content. As a result, financial institutions both exclude sex workers and shape how sex workers can undertake their labour. Thus, whilst research demonstrates increased safety and autonomy in working conditions, payment processors and banks highlight new issues specific to digital sex work. This is an increasing harm that results in financial precarity (Blunt & Wolf, 2020; Franco, 2024). 

Payment Processors and Platform Control 

The power of financial companies to shape online sex work became particularly visible in 2021 when subscription platform OnlyFans announced it would remove and exclude all explicit sexual content. The decision was cited as pressure from banking partners and payment providers who were concerned about compliance and reputational risk (The Guardian, 2021).

The company later reversed the decision after significant calls to do so from creators and advocacy groups; however, this event explicitly illustrates the power that financial institutions hold over digital platforms. Other platforms have experienced similar pressures with payment providers repeatedly terminating accounts associated with adult content and sex work, often citing violations of acceptable use policies (Blunt & Wolf, 2020).

Furthermore, in 2020, we observed Visa and Mastercard suspend payment processing for Pornhub following allegations of unverified content on the platforms. Due to the suspension, the website introduced increasingly strict verification requirements and removed millions of videos to restore payment services (Franco, 2024). 

These cases demonstrate how payment processors have the power to regulate online platforms and shape sex workers’ labour. By threatening to withdraw from platforms, they shape platform policies and reshape the entire digital market. Whilst direct account closures and refusal to process payments for individuals is an increasing issue of financial discrimination, so is the link between payment processors’ policies and digital platforms.

Risk management and financial exclusion

Financial institutions often justify the restrictions on sex work through labelling sex work as ‘high risk’ and monitoring sex work through risk management strategies. This categorisation comes from the association of adult content as inherently linked with fraud, trafficking or reputational harm (Pitcher, 2015).

However, these classifications rely on broad assumptions rather than robust evidence. When these forms of exclusion and discrimination occur, banks rarely provide explanations and most often refer to internal policies (Cheles-McLean 2024).

The lack of transparency around these processes exacerbates the problem. Often, workers receive little information about why their accounts were closed or how to reopen them. This means that in practice, workers typically have limited ability to challenge the decisions or seek restorative justice in this context. 

Research has documented how disruptions to platforms and payment systems occur suddenly, removing income overnight and creating continual ongoing instability for workers (Blunt & Wolf, 2020). At the same time, the structure of payment systems means that they play a central role in sex workers receiving payment for their labour. As Franco (2024) demonstrates, payment processors heavily influence platform policies and determine what labour is allowed.

One sex worker in Cheles-McLean’s article states:

I have felt a profound sense of insecurity, as I suspect most sex workers have, in all the 10 years I’ve been working, including now with [payment service provider]… because all companies we know from lived experience are susceptible to just de-bank you and ban you with little to no notice. So, there’s always a lack of security there. (Participant Cheles-McLean, 2024)

Payment processors essentially set the boundaries for participation in the digital market. Taken together, it is evident that risk management strategies extend beyond internal financial processes. Instead, they extend into the organisation of labour itself. By categorising sex work as inherently risky, financial institutions do not just restrict services, but they also shape the conditions under which sex workers can earn.

The conflation of trafficking and consensual sex work 

A key issue regarding financial discrimination is broader policy frameworks that conflate consensual sex work and trafficking. Anti-trafficking initiatives continue to target online platforms that host adult content and the accompanying financial systems they use. This targeting unfairly affects sex workers, often under the belief that sex work and exploitation are the same (Doezema, 2010; Musto, 2016; Blunt & Wolf, 2020).

Consequently, regulatory frameworks that address trafficking create incentives for platforms and financial institutions to adopt blanket restrictions on sexual content. This is underpinned by the ongoing issue of regulatory frameworks that target trafficking, failing to distinguish between consensual sex work and trafficking. 

This issue is most visible in the adoption of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (2018) (FOSTA-SESTA) in the United States. This law created new liabilities for platforms hosting sexual content in order to combat trafficking online but resulted in the removal of online advertising for sex workers. This disrupted workers’ incomes, removed safer working practices and reduced access to tools such as client screening (Blunt & Stardust, 2021). 

Consequently, it is evident that the conflation of consensual sex work with trafficking has significant consequences for sex workers, and this is increasing as regulation focuses further on digital environments. The dynamics were first visible in 2018 with the introduction of FOSTA-SESTA, which led to the removal of online advertising platforms such as Backpage that many workers used to advertise in-person services.

These same anti-trafficking frameworks have been pushed towards platforms and payment services, where transactions associated with sexual labour are restricted or prohibited. Thus, the regulatory logic of conflating trafficking and sex work contributes significantly to the forms of financial discrimination discussed throughout this article. 

Regulation and the UK Policy Context 

Financial discrimination should be understood within the broader landscape of increasing online regulation. In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced new obligations for digital platforms to address harmful and illegal content. Whilst this legislation does not directly target sex work, it does increase regulatory pressure on platforms that host sexual content. Companies may respond by adopting stricter moderation policies or removing certain types of content to minimise legal or reputational risk. 

At the same time, debates surrounding the Nordic Model, a form of criminalisation which criminalises the client during the exchange of in-person services, are gaining renewed attention in parts of the UK. Consequently, with an increasingly complex and highly debated regulatory environment, financial institutions may adopt more cautious approaches to industries perceived as controversial.

Together, these different aspects create a system where laws, corporate policies and platform guidelines decide how and whether sex workers can undertake their labour and be paid for that labour. The caution around the industry translates into practical barriers for workers.

A key aspect is financial services, where banks, payment processors and platforms treat the industry as high-risk. As we have seen, this link with trafficking and high-risk content has resulted in financial exclusion and increasing forms of financial precarity. As the UK brings in tighter online regulation and debates further criminalisation of full-service sex work, financial institutions may adopt more cautious approaches to the industry. 

Financial infrastructure and economic participation

The growing role of financial services in regulating online activity raises questions about economic participation in the digital marketplace. In today’s society, access to banking systems and payment systems is essential for work and everyday life.

Usually, access to financial services is taken as a neutral part of everyday life, but for sex workers, these systems are not neutral. As this article has demonstrated, decisions made by banks, payment processors and platforms determine whether sex workers can advertise their services or receive payments for their work. 

Financial discrimination is more than an inconvenience; the barriers make it harder for workers to gain financial stability or live their lives normally. Accounts are closed, funds removed or frozen, and there is little recourse to justice. As online sex work becomes increasingly central to the sex industry, financial systems are playing a growing role in shaping how that work is undertaken.

The complex interactions between anti-trafficking policies and platform regulation heighten financial risk management, thereby enabling private companies to make decisions with significant consequences for workers’ livelihoods. 

Evidently, financial discrimination and exclusion make it difficult for workers to participate in the digital economy. Financial discrimination highlights how control over payment systems functions as indirect regulation.

Restricting access to financial infrastructure, such as banks and payment processors, not only shapes online platforms but also influences who can work and be paid in the digital labour market. Increasingly, sex workers are continually up against barriers to their economic participation, increasing financial instability and decreasing safety in their work.