Anderegg was charged with three counts under Section 1466A—for production, distribution, and possession of child obscenity—as well as one count under a different law of transferring obscene material to a minor. However, the court did dismiss the possession charge, holding that Section 1466A is unconstitutional as applied to Anderegg’s private possession of obscene “virtual” CSAM. The government asserted that the case was more like Osborne than Stanley, that Stanley is limited to obscene material depicting adults, and that Congress has compelling interests to ban possession of obscene “virtual” CSAM – for example, its potential use to groom children and the difficulty of distinguishing “virtual” CSAM from imagery involving real children.