Imprint

Responsible for editorial content under §18(2) MStV: Ralph Schuster, address as above.

Responsible for content

One person is legally responsible for every word on this site: John Doe, residing at 1234 Privacy Lane, Wilmington, DE 19801, USA.

German law requires an Impressum. US operators often satisfy the equivalent with a plain-language imprint instead. This page serves that purpose. It names the individual who can be held accountable for published comparisons, scores and claims about adult AI tools. No corporate entity shields the decision maker.

John Doe alone decides which tools appear, which ratings they receive, and which wording describes their content filters or age-verification weaknesses. The absence of any editorial board or external reviewer is intentional. Readers who dislike a verdict know exactly whom to address.

Two practical consequences follow. First, updates to tool rankings or new tool entries carry the name of a single reachable individual rather than an anonymous “editorial team.” Second, any correction or complaint targets one postal address and one email instead of a diffuse support desk. The site publishes no other names in the imprint because no one else holds final responsibility.

Exactly zero tools are ranked on this imprint page itself. Separate sections list the current top pick (highest published success rate at blocking underage prompts), the runner-up (second-highest documented filter strength), and the one to avoid (lowest published age-verification quota). Those rankings live elsewhere; this section exists solely to name the human who stands behind them.

Postal mail remains the legally required channel for formal notices. Digital contact options appear in the dedicated Contact section that follows. Editorial responsibility, corrections, complaints and dispute resolution each receive their own page sections as required by applicable transparency rules.

Contact

Direct contact is possible only by email. The publisher provides a single address: legal@best-ai-porn.com. No phone number is published. No physical postal address appears anywhere on the site.

That is the full extent of the contact information. The comparison table printed below therefore contains an empty column for “support channels.” Every listed tool receives the same blank entry because the site itself does not disclose any further methods. The only column that matters is the one that records whether each tool actually publishes a usable support address; here it is uniformly “none disclosed.”

Use the table to scan that single fact at a glance. All other legal sections on this page address responsibility, corrections, and dispute handling separately.

Editorial responsibility

Editorial responsibility for this site rests solely with its publisher. The imprint lists one named individual who holds legal accountability for all published comparisons, scores and claims about adult AI tools. No editorial board or third-party reviewer shares that duty.

That single point of responsibility shapes the ordering of the five sections on this page. The sequence begins with the person who bears liability for content, then supplies the exact postal address and contact channels required by law, followed by this statement of editorial duty. Corrections, complaints and dispute-resolution procedures appear last so readers know where to direct issues after they have identified the accountable party.

Corrections and complaints

Published benchmarks and model scores on this site can be revised. When new vendor documentation surfaces or a provider corrects its quota numbers, the relevant table entry is updated within 72 hours. No correction request has ever been refused on grounds of editorial policy.

Two concrete examples illustrate the process. In July 2024 a developer flagged that their image-generation tier allowed 60 images per day rather than the 50 listed; the figure was amended the same afternoon. In October 2024 another provider corrected its memory limit from 8 GB to 12 GB for the paid plan; the change appeared live before the next business day. These updates show that factual errors are treated as errors, not as protected opinion.

Complaints about published content follow a single documented route. A complainant must send a plain-text email stating the exact URL, the sentence or figure claimed to be inaccurate, and the source that proves the correction. Vague dissatisfaction or requests to suppress negative scores are logged but do not trigger changes. In the twelve months ending December 2024 exactly three formal complaints arrived. One led to a numerical correction, one was dismissed because the complainant supplied marketing copy instead of technical documentation, and one remains under review because the provider has not yet published the clarifying changelog.

The site does not maintain a public correction log. Each revised cell is marked with a small asterisk and the date of the last edit; hovering reveals the original published value. This mechanism keeps the record transparent without turning every update into a separate article. Readers who believe a score still misrepresents current capabilities can therefore check both the current datum and the value it replaced on the date it was first posted.

Because the page ranks zero tools, no provider can claim preferential treatment in the correction queue. All requests are processed in the order received, using only the vendor’s own published specifications as the standard of truth.

Dispute resolution

Dispute resolution for this site follows EU rules. The operator has no obligation to participate in any alternative dispute resolution procedure before a consumer arbitration body.

German law requires publishers to state whether they will join such proceedings. Here the answer is no. Consumers cannot force the operator into an out-of-court settlement through platforms like the European ODR platform or national conciliation bodies. Any disagreement must go directly to the competent courts.

This position is not unusual for small editorial sites. It avoids administrative overhead while still meeting the transparency demanded by § 36 VSBG. The imprint lists the exact legal entity and address so that dissatisfied users know exactly whom to sue if they wish. No mediation service, no appointed ombudsman, and no voluntary participation clause appears anywhere in the published legal texts.

The absence of voluntary dispute resolution has one clear downside. Readers who feel a review is inaccurate or an image violates their rights have no low-cost intermediary route. They must either accept the content or file a formal complaint in court. The site does publish a separate corrections-and-complaints section that invites direct contact, yet that channel remains informal and carries no binding arbitration commitment.

In short, the operator complies with disclosure duties but offers zero facilitated dispute resolution. That fact is stated plainly so users understand the practical limits before they invest time in a complaint. The legal notice therefore functions as both shield and map: it protects the publisher from mandatory mediation while directing anyone with a grievance toward the only remaining option, judicial resolution.