"Verbally servicing an interlocutor...

[Locutus]

for the purpose of sexual excitement does not constitute a sexual service, if it does not involve the bodily erogenous zones of the person who is getting paid for such a service," the criminal court ruled.

No hands, no foul in Italy phone-sex case - UPI.com

You read it here first. Phone-sex is so last decade anyway.

 

[SLM]

"Verbally servicing an interlocutor for the purpose of sexual excitement does not constitute a sexual service, if it does not involve the bodily erogenous zones of the person who is getting paid for such a service,"

And that would be why they didn't get the job.
​