Online promotion of prostitution is a felony under Texas Penal Code § 43.031 — a third-degree felony (2–10 years) at baseline, and a second-degree felony (2–20 years) with a prior conviction or when the conduct involves a person under 18. It targets people who own, manage, or operate a website, app, or other online service with intent to promote or facilitate prostitution — not the buyer or seller. Below: the statute text, the penalty table, the elements the State must prove, the federal FOSTA-SESTA overlap, and defense strategies in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County courts.
Free, Confidential Case Review
Tell us what happened. A defense attorney reviews every submission — usually within the hour during business hours.
Published 2026-07-05 · Reviewed by Reggie London and Njeri London, Co-Founding Partners · Last reviewed: 2026-07-05
Peer Recognition
Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors
Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.
Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Controlling statute:Tex. Penal Code § 43.031 (Online Promotion of Prostitution) Related sections:§ 43.03 (Promotion) · § 43.041 (Aggravated Online Promotion) · § 43.01 (Definitions) Classification: third-degree felony baseline; second-degree felony with a prior conviction under § 43.031 or § 43.041, or when the conduct involves a person younger than 18 engaging in prostitution Punishment range: third degree, 2–10 years TDCJ; second degree, 2–20 years — each with a fine of up to $10,000 (Penal Code §§ 12.33–12.34)
What Is Online Promotion of Prostitution Under Texas Law?
Online promotion of prostitution is Texas's dedicated platform-operator offense. When the Legislature passed Section 43.031 in 2019, it moved prostitution-promotion enforcement off the street and onto the server — targeting the people who run the websites, apps, and ad boards used to arrange commercial sex, rather than the individual buyer or seller. The core prohibition reads:
"(a) A person commits an offense if the person owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service or information content provider, or operates as an information content provider, with the intent to promote the prostitution of another person or facilitate another person to engage in prostitution or solicitation of prostitution."
Every online promotion prosecution is built on two pillars, and both must be proved. The first is a role: the defendant owned, managed, or operated an "interactive computer service" or "information content provider," or personally operated as an information content provider. The second is intent: the defendant acted with the specific purpose of promoting the prostitution of another person or facilitating another person's prostitution or solicitation. Neither pillar stands alone. Running a platform where prostitution happens to occur is not a crime; running it with intent to promote or facilitate that prostitution is. And the intent must aim at another person's commercial sex — § 43.031 is not the statute for the buyer or the seller, who are reached by § 43.021 (solicitation) and § 43.02 (prostitution).
Two borrowed definitions do most of the statute's reaching. "Interactive computer service" and "information content provider" are federal terms of art lifted from the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(f). An interactive computer service is broadly any information service, system, or access-software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server — websites, forums, apps, hosting services, and ad boards all qualify. An information content provider is any person or entity responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service. That second definition is why prosecutors sometimes argue that a person who creates or develops the commercial-sex listings on a site — not just the site's owner — can fall inside § 43.031.
The statute was enacted the year after Congress passed FOSTA-SESTA, the 2018 federal law that stripped platform immunity for commercial-sex content and created a parallel federal offense. Texas built § 43.031 to give state prosecutors a matching tool. It was added by S.B. 20 (86th Legislature, effective September 1, 2019) and amended by H.B. 1540 (87th Legislature, effective September 1, 2021), the omnibus human-trafficking bill that reorganized much of Chapter 43.
What Are the Penalties for Online Promotion of Prostitution in Texas?
Online promotion is a felony in every form. The baseline is a third-degree felony, and a single enhancement moves it up one full grade. The grid below states the law as verified against the current statute text:
Scenario
Grade
Prison range
Maximum fine
Baseline § 43.031(a) — operating a service with intent to promote or facilitate prostitution
3rd-degree felony
2–10 years TDCJ
Up to $10,000
Prior conviction — § 43.031(b)(1): a previous conviction under § 43.031 or § 43.041
2nd-degree felony
2–20 years TDCJ
Up to $10,000
Minor involved — § 43.031(b)(2): conduct involving a person under 18 engaging in prostitution, regardless of knowledge of age
2nd-degree felony
2–20 years TDCJ
Up to $10,000
Prison ranges come from Penal Code §§ 12.33–12.34: a third-degree felony carries 2 to 10 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and a second-degree felony carries 2 to 20 years — each with an optional fine of up to $10,000. If the State proves unrelated prior felony convictions, the habitual-offender rules in Chapter 12 can raise the applicable range further.
There is one more rung above § 43.031, and prosecutors reach for it when the numbers grow. Aggravated online promotion of prostitution under § 43.041 applies when the online conduct involves five or more persons. It is a second-degree felony at baseline and a first-degree felony (5–99 years or life) when a prior § 43.041 conviction exists or when two or more of the persons are younger than 18. A § 43.031 case that starts as a single-platform investigation can be re-charged as § 43.041 if the State builds the five-person count — which is why the number of persons the evidence actually proves is a live issue from the start.
Elements the State Must Prove
Conviction requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 43.031 breaks down into a role element, a service element, and an intent element:
The role — owner, manager, or operator
The State must prove the defendant owned, managed, or operated an interactive computer service or information content provider, or operated as an information content provider. This is where attribution lives: proving that a specific human being controlled a specific website, app, or account — as opposed to merely using it, posting on it, or once logging in — is a forensic burden the defense can contest directly.
The service — an interactive computer service or information content provider
The platform itself must satisfy the § 43.01 / § 230(f) definitions. Most modern websites and apps do, but the definitions matter when the "service" is an ordinary text thread, a private message, or a general-purpose account that the State is trying to characterize as a prostitution platform.
The intent — to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another
The defendant must have acted with the intent to promote the prostitution of another person, or to facilitate another person's prostitution or solicitation. Intent is a specific mental state under Penal Code § 6.03(a). It is not enough that prostitution occurred on the platform, or that the defendant should have known; the State must prove purpose. Because nearly every platform has lawful uses, this element is usually the center of gravity in a § 43.031 case.
Grade-raising facts
To reach second-degree range, the State must additionally prove either a qualifying prior conviction (§ 43.031 or § 43.041) or that the conduct involved a person younger than 18 engaging in prostitution. The age enhancement carries no knowledge requirement — the statute says it applies "regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense" — so the contest is over whether a minor was actually involved, not over what the defendant believed.
How Is Online Promotion Different from § 43.03 Promotion and § 33.021 Online Solicitation?
These three statutes are easy to confuse and carry very different elements and consequences. The table sorts them out:
The buyer — offering or agreeing to pay a fee for sexual conduct
State jail felony
Online promotion versus § 43.03. The two promotion statutes share a baseline grade and the same underlying goal, but they are proved differently. Section 43.03 is a proceeds-and-solicitation statute — it turns on a money-sharing agreement or a solicitation for another, and its cases often center on cash flow. Section 43.031 is a platform-operation statute — it turns on running an online service with the required intent, and its cases center on domain registrations, hosting and payment accounts, and moderator activity. The same defendant can face both if the facts include both an offline proceeds agreement and an online platform.
Online promotion versus § 33.021. These are entirely different chapters. Online solicitation of a minor under § 33.021 is about sexual communication with someone the actor believes is a child; it is not limited to prostitution and does not require operating a platform. Section 43.031 is about operating a commercial-sex platform and is not limited to minors. They intersect only when an online-promotion investigation also turns up sexually explicit communications with a minor — at which point the State may file both, under different statutes, with different registration consequences.
Platform-Operator and Moderator Fact Patterns
Because § 43.031 is written around who runs an online service, real cases sort into a handful of recurring roles — and the defendant's exact position on the platform usually drives the outcome:
Site owners and administrators. The clearest target is the person who registered, hosts, and controls a website or app used to advertise or coordinate commercial sex. Here the fight is rarely "was there a platform" but rather intent, and whether the owner's purpose was to promote prostitution as opposed to running a general-classifieds or dating service that others misused.
Moderators and content managers. A person who screens posts, approves listings, or curates "provider" content may be charged as one who manages or operates the service, or as an information content provider who develops the listings. Whether a moderator's role rises to management — or is closer to a low-level user — is a factual question that the State's own logs often illuminate.
Ad posters and "bookers." Someone who repeatedly creates and places commercial-sex advertisements on a platform can be argued into the "information content provider" definition as a person who creates or develops that content. This is the blurriest line in the statute, and it is where the mere-user-versus-operator defense does its hardest work.
Payment and support roles. People who set up payment processing, manage subscriptions, or provide technical support for a platform can be swept into "operating" it. The defense examines whether they knew the platform's purpose and whether their conduct was operation or ordinary vendor work.
Every one of these prosecutions is a digital-evidence case. The State's exhibits are domain-registration records, hosting and content-delivery accounts, payment-processor and cash-app flows, moderator and admin logs, IP records, and device extractions taken under warrant. That has two consequences for the defense: the evidence is only as good as the warrants that produced it, and it must be tied to a specific person. Shared logins, resold or hijacked accounts, spoofed registrations, and multi-administrator platforms all create genuine doubt about who actually "operated" anything — and that doubt is frequently the case.
The Federal Overlap: FOSTA-SESTA and 18 U.S.C. § 2421A
Texas did not build § 43.031 in a vacuum. In 2018 Congress passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act — together known as FOSTA-SESTA — which did two things that reshaped online-platform liability nationwide.
First, it created a new federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2421A makes it an offense to own, manage, or operate an interactive computer service, or to conspire or attempt to do so, with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person. It carries an aggravated tier — with substantially higher penalties — where the conduct promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons or is done in reckless disregard of the fact that it contributed to sex trafficking. Texas's § 43.031 and § 43.041 mirror this two-tier structure almost exactly, which is not a coincidence: the state statutes were drafted to match the federal template.
Second, FOSTA-SESTA narrowed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the provision that had generally immunized online platforms from liability for user-generated content. After FOSTA-SESTA, Section 230 no longer shields a platform from federal sex-trafficking claims or from state criminal charges that are consistent with § 2421A. That change is the legal engine behind the whole category: it is why operating a commercial-sex platform can now be prosecuted rather than defended as protected intermediary activity.
The practical point for a Texas defendant is exposure on two fronts. The same servers, accounts, and records that support a state § 43.031 case can support a federal § 2421A case, and federal authorities — often working with the same digital evidence — may bring their own charges in the Northern or Eastern District of Texas. Anyone facing a state online-promotion investigation should assume the possibility of parallel federal interest and have counsel who can see the whole board. Sex-crime defense at this level is as much about managing the intersection of state and federal exposure as it is about any single statute.
What Defenses Work Against an Online Promotion Charge?
The right theory depends on the exact role the State alleges and how the digital evidence was built. Defense strategies we develop in § 43.031 cases include:
No intent to promote or facilitate prostitution. This is the statute's load-bearing element. A platform with lawful uses — classifieds, dating, adult content that is not commercial sex — is not § 43.031 unless the State proves the operator's specific purpose was to promote or facilitate another person's prostitution. Ambiguous listings, automated content, and a hands-off operator all cut against intent.
Not an owner, manager, or operator. Section 43.031 reaches those who run the service, not everyone who touches it. A user who posts, browses, or once logged in is not an operator. Where the State's theory rests on a subordinate or intermittent role, the defense holds it to the ownership-management-operation language.
Mere user versus operator / information-content-provider dispute. The "information content provider" definition is broad but not boundless — it reaches those responsible for creating or developing the content. Whether a client falls inside it, or is simply a person who used someone else's platform, is often the whole case.
Attribution failure. Digital identity is contestable. Shared credentials, resold or compromised accounts, spoofed or proxy registrations, and multi-admin boards create reasonable doubt about who actually operated the service. The State must connect the platform to the person, not just to a login.
Unlawful search and suppression. Device extractions, server and hosting records, and provider returns all depend on warrants and their scope. Evidence obtained illegally is excluded under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23, and an online-promotion case can collapse when the digital backbone is suppressed.
Fighting the enhancement. If the State alleges a prior conviction, the defense tests the qualifying prior; if it alleges a minor, the defense contests whether the conduct actually involved a person under 18 engaging in prostitution. Defeating the enhancement moves the exposure from 2–20 back down to 2–10.
Keeping it a § 43.031 case. The same facts can be re-charged as aggravated online promotion under § 43.041 (five or more persons) or folded into a trafficking theory under Chapter 20A. Holding the State to what it can actually prove — the number of persons, the absence of coercion — is often the single highest-value structural fight in the case.
Enhancements & Collateral Consequences
The in-statute enhancements are described above: a prior § 43.031 or § 43.041 conviction, or conduct involving a person under 18 engaging in prostitution, each raises the offense from third to second degree — with no knowledge-of-age requirement. Chapter 12 habitual-felony enhancements can stack on top for defendants with unrelated felony priors, and the conduct can be re-charged upward as § 43.041 or as a Chapter 20A trafficking offense. Beyond the sentence, a conviction carries consequences that outlast any prison term:
Sex-offender registration. Whether a given conviction is a reportable conviction is governed by Code of Criminal Procedure article 62.001(5), and that enumerated list changes from session to session. Because the trafficking and compelling offenses that so often ride alongside online-promotion counts are reportable, registration exposure must be confirmed against the current article 62.001 text before any plea — never assumed.
Immigration. Federal law classifies offenses relating to "the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business" as aggravated felonies, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(K)(i). For non-citizens, an online-promotion conviction can mean near-certain removal and permanent inadmissibility, so the immigration analysis has to happen before, not after, a plea.
Firearms. Any felony conviction triggers the Texas possession bar of Penal Code § 46.04 and the federal lifetime bar of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Asset forfeiture. Texas contraband-forfeiture law (Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 59) lets the State pursue money and property it contends are proceeds of, or were used to commit, enumerated felonies — and prosecutors commonly file a parallel civil action against domains, servers, accounts, and cash tied to a platform.
Probation and deferred-adjudication limits. Community-supervision eligibility under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 42A depends on the exact grade and enhancement alleged, and narrows for the second-degree and minor-involved variants; eligibility must be mapped to the specific subsection before any plea decision.
Licensing, employment, and reputation. A felony conviction reaches professional licenses through Occupations Code chapter 53 fitness review and appears on every standard background check for employment and housing — and online cases frequently carry a digital footprint that follows the client independently of the court record.
What Happens After an Online Promotion Arrest? — Case Timeline
These cases rarely begin with an arrest at the scene. More often they start quietly: an investigation into a platform, subpoenas to hosting and payment companies, and analysis of accounts and devices, followed by a warrant weeks or months later. Once charges are filed, the case follows the Texas felony track: magistration within about 48 hours (Code of Criminal Procedure article 15.17), where bond and conditions are set; grand-jury indictment, since online promotion is a felony; discovery under article 39.14, which obligates the State to produce offense reports, extraction reports, provider returns, and witness statements; pretrial motions — suppression, quashal, and election fights over which subsection and which enhancement the State must commit to; and resolution by dismissal, reduction, plea, or trial. Because the offense is internet-based, bond conditions frequently include device and internet restrictions, so getting conditions right at magistration has immediate, practical stakes for a defendant who works or lives online.
Hypothetical example (illustrative only): a McKinney web developer runs a members-only "review" forum where posters coordinate meetings with providers across DFW; he approves new posts and manages the payment gateway. If the State proves he operated the board with intent to facilitate prostitution, the exposure is § 43.031 — a third-degree felony — unless the count reaches five or more persons, which would put § 43.041 in play. His defense would target intent, whether his moderation amounted to "operating," and attribution of the admin account.
Second hypothetical: a person lends login access to a general classifieds account that another individual uses to post commercial-sex ads. The State charges the account holder as an operator. The defense targets both intent — did the account holder share the platform's alleged purpose — and attribution, since the actual posting was done by someone else under shared credentials.
County-by-County Practice Notes
L and L Law Group defends online-promotion cases from one office — 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101, Frisco — across the four core DFW counties:
Collin County. Felony cases are indicted by the Collin County grand jury and heard in the district courts at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building), 2100 Bloomdale Rd, McKinney. Digital-offense cases here often originate with Frisco, Plano, McKinney, and Allen investigations working alongside regional task forces.
Dallas County. Felonies are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas. Platform cases in Dallas more often arrive with parallel federal interest when servers, payment processors, or interstate conduct are involved.
Tarrant County. District courts sit at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. Tarrant prosecutors routinely pair online-promotion counts with trafficking-investigation referrals, which makes early charge-framing work especially valuable.
Denton County. Felony cases are heard at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton, with investigations frequently generated along the I-35E corridor from Lewisville through Denton.
These are general practice observations about where and how cases are filed — every case turns on its own facts, agency, and court assignment.
Key Legal Terms
Online Promotion of Prostitution (§ 43.031)
Owning, managing, or operating an interactive computer service or information content provider — or operating as an information content provider — with intent to promote the prostitution of another or facilitate another person's prostitution or solicitation; a third-degree felony at baseline.
Interactive Computer Service
A federal term of art from 47 U.S.C. § 230(f), imported into Chapter 43: any information service, system, or access-software provider that enables multi-user access to a computer server — websites, apps, forums, and ad boards. The platform element of §§ 43.031 and 43.041.
Information Content Provider
Any person or entity responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through an interactive computer service. Prosecutors use this definition to reach people who create or develop commercial-sex listings, not just platform owners.
Intent to Promote or Facilitate
The specific mental state § 43.031 requires (Penal Code § 6.03(a)). The State must prove the operator's conscious objective was to promote or facilitate another person's prostitution — not merely that prostitution occurred on the platform.
FOSTA-SESTA / 18 U.S.C. § 2421A
The 2018 federal law that created a matching federal online-promotion offense and narrowed Section 230 immunity for platforms — the reason state and federal charges can arise from the same online conduct.
Regardless-of-Age Liability
The § 43.031(b)(2) enhancement applies "regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person" — a mistaken or reasonable belief about age is not a defense to the grade increase.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is online promotion of prostitution a felony in Texas?
Yes. Online promotion of prostitution under Texas Penal Code § 43.031 is a third-degree felony, carrying 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. It becomes a second-degree felony (2 to 20 years) if you have a prior conviction under § 43.031 or § 43.041, or if the conduct involves a person younger than 18 engaging in prostitution — regardless of whether you knew the person’s age.
What exactly does § 43.031 make illegal?
It criminalizes owning, managing, or operating an interactive computer service or information content provider — or operating as an information content provider — with the intent to promote the prostitution of another person or to facilitate another person in engaging in prostitution or solicitation. In plain terms, it targets the person running a website, app, ad board, or online platform used to arrange commercial sex for other people, not the individual buyer or seller.
How is online promotion different from regular promotion under § 43.03?
Section 43.03 is the general promotion statute — sharing prostitution proceeds under an agreement or soliciting one person to have sex with another for compensation. Section 43.031 is the digital-platform version: it reaches people who own, manage, or operate an online service with intent to promote or facilitate prostitution. The two share the same baseline third-degree grade, but § 43.031 is built around operating a computer service rather than a proceeds agreement, so online cases turn on platform records and intent rather than cash flow.
Is § 43.031 the same as online solicitation of a minor under § 33.021?
No. Online solicitation of a minor under Penal Code § 33.021 punishes communicating in a sexually explicit manner with, or soliciting, a person the actor believes is a minor. Section 43.031 punishes operating an online service to promote or facilitate prostitution, and it is not limited to minors. Different chapters, different elements, and different registration consequences — though a single investigation sometimes produces both charges.
Can I be charged if I only posted an ad or used the website?
Section 43.031 is written to reach the person who owns, manages, or operates the service, or operates as an information content provider — not simply someone who browses or responds to a post. That said, prosecutors read “information content provider” broadly, and a person who creates or develops the commercial-sex content on a platform can fall inside it. The mere-user-versus-operator line is often the central fight, and it depends on what the digital evidence actually shows about your role.
What is 'intent to promote or facilitate' and why does it matter?
Intent is the element that separates a lawful platform from a criminal one. The State must prove you acted with the intent to promote the prostitution of another or to facilitate another person's prostitution or solicitation — not merely that prostitution happened to occur on a service you touched. Because most online platforms have legitimate uses, intent is frequently where these cases are won or lost.
Is there a federal version of this charge?
Yes. After the 2018 FOSTA-SESTA law, 18 U.S.C. § 2421A makes it a federal crime to own, manage, or operate an interactive computer service with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person, and the same law narrowed the Section 230 immunity platforms once relied on. Federal and Texas charges can arise from the same facts, so anyone facing a § 43.031 case should understand the potential for parallel federal exposure.
What if I did not know the person was under 18?
Not knowing the age is not a defense to the enhancement. Section 43.031(b)(2) raises the offense to a second-degree felony when the conduct involves a person younger than 18 engaging in prostitution “regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense.” The defense fight is over whether the conduct actually involved a minor at all, not over what you believed.
What defenses work against an online promotion charge?
Common defense theories include no intent to promote or facilitate prostitution, no ownership or operational control of the service, mistaken attribution of an account or platform to you, and unlawful searches of devices, servers, or provider records. Because these prosecutions are built almost entirely on digital evidence, challenging how that evidence was gathered and who it actually points to is central. Every case turns on its own facts.
What should I do if I am under investigation for § 43.031?
Do not talk to investigators about the case and do not consent to searches of your phone, computer, or online accounts. Preserve — do not delete — any records, because deletion can create separate tampering exposure. Then contact a Texas criminal defense attorney promptly. Early defense work, before indictment, is when charge reduction and grand-jury presentations are most realistic.
Reggie London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on federal criminal defense, complex felony defense, and TEA/SBEC matters. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Njeri London co-founded L and L Law Group with a focus on DWI defense, family violence cases, and juvenile defense. Licensed in Texas, admitted to TXND and TXED.
Charged with Online Promotion of Prostitution? Talk to L and L Law Group.
Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London personally handle every case. Free consultation. Frisco, Texas.
L&L Law Group represents clients across North Texas counties for DWI, assault, drug crimes, juvenile defense, outstanding warrants, bond reduction, and expunction matters.
