Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites.
— Condoms in Adult Films — Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements.Initiative Statute —
State of CaliforniaProp. 60 — Condoms in Adult Films Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required
Share This Page
Here is some helpful information about this ballot measure from trusted sources.
The way it is now
Many adult films and other types of pornography are made in California. The state has laws in place to make sure that people are safe and protected while at work. These laws also apply to adult film producers and actors. Safety regulations currently require performers to use condoms during sex on adult film sets to prevent HIV, AIDS and other diseases. If the state office of workplace safety gets a complaint, companies that do not follow this rule may be fined. In 2014, Los Angeles also passed a local law requiring condoms in adult films.
What if it passes?
Adult film producers would be required to make sure condoms are used while filming vaginal and anal sex. Adult film producers would be required to get a license and provide information to the state about their film shoots. These requirements would apply to pornography produced by film studios, as well as by individual performers or couples. The state’s workplace safety agency would have more time to investigate and fine adult film producers that do not use condoms. California residents would also be allowed to sue adult film producers for not using condoms if the state failed to take action.
It is difficult to say exactly what would happen if the law passes. If companies and individuals making pornography decide to move out of California, state and local governments would likely lose several million dollars in taxes. The cost to enforce the law would be around $1 million each year. This cost would mostly be paid for by fees on adult film producers.
People FOR say
- The current law requiring condoms is not being followed by adult film producers.
- Prop 60 would protect adult film performers from harmful diseases like HIV and AIDS.
People AGAINST say
- Adult performers are already tested frequently for diseases. Prop 60 is not necessary.
- Married couples who film in their own homes could be sued.
Should performers in adult films be required to use condoms during filming, should new requirements for producers of adult films be added to the California Labor Code, and should private citizens be allowed to file suit based on violation of these requirements?
California is a leading adult film industry location, with many such films being made in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. (Adult films are commonly known as “pornography.”) The state Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) already requires adult film condom use, as does Los Angeles County. Cal/OSHA considers exposure to certain body fluids a workplace hazard, because harmful sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV can spread from infected people to healthy people. In enforcing these rules, Cal/OSHA requires performers to use condoms during sex on adult film sets.
Some producers and performers prefer to make adult films without condoms or other protective equipment, and instead use regular STI testing to confirm that performers are free of harmful infections.
Prop. 60 would place into the California Labor Code additional requirements regarding workplace health and safety on adult film sets:
- Adult film producers would be required to provide condoms, ensure that performers use them, and be able to prove that they did so. Producers would have to be licensed by Cal/OSHA, pay licensing fees, pay for the costs of STI prevention vaccines, testing and medical exams, and keep records showing that they complied with the requirements. The time period for enforcement of violations would be expanded, and there would be financial penalties for such violations. Adult film distributors and talent agents could also face liability for violations.
- Any California resident could request Cal/OSHA to address an alleged violation, and, if Cal/OSHA did not take action, that person could file a civil lawsuit against the adult film producer or distributor. If the individual prevailed in the lawsuit, that person would recover their legal costs and receive 25 percent of any penalties paid by the defendant.
Some parts of the industry likely would comply with Prop. 60, while others might relocate outside of California or try to evade the law while continuing to make adult films. Adult film wages and business income would likely decline, resulting in reduced state and local revenues by several million dollars per year. Most of the ongoing state costs to implement the law would be offset by the new fees on adult film producers.
- Prop. 60 closes loopholes in existing law and improves enforcement so that the adult film industry is held to the same workplace protection law that applies to every other California industry.
- Prop. 60 is supported by numerous medical and public health organizations.
- Prop. 60 is opposed by numerous civil rights and public health organizations and business leaders.
- Prop. 60 creates a dangerous, new private right of action, authorizing any resident of California to file a lawsuit directly against adult film producers and distributors.
- Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.
- Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections.
- Requires producers of adult films to obtain state health license, and to post condom requirement at film sites.
- Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the film involved, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers.
- Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
- Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars per year.
- Increased state costs that could exceed $1 million annually to license and regulate adult film production and to enforce workplace health and safety rules. These costs would be offset to some extent by new fee revenue.
California Is Leading Adult Film Industry Location. Many adult films are made in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (a long-time center of adult film production) and elsewhere in California. (Adult films are also commonly called “pornography.”) A number of media companies produce adult films here, which consumers mostly view over the Internet. Some adult film performers also own businesses that produce, finance, or distribute content. These businesses include websites and social media platforms where the performers promote their own videos and photos.
State Laws Protect Worker Safety and Health. State law imposes a variety of requirements on employers to protect their employees from harm in the workplace. The state Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) enforces regulations to protect workers from workplace hazards. A state board, appointed by the Governor, is responsible for adopting and updating these workplace health and safety regulations. Performers and other workers on adult film sets, such as directors and camera operators, may be exposed to a variety of health and safety hazards while working there. These range from typical workplace health and safety issues (like inadequate first aid kits in the workplace) to other risks specific to adult film sets—such as contact with potentially infectious body fluids, especially semen, while making or performing in a film.
Cal/OSHA Already Requires Adult Film Condom Use. Cal/OSHA considers exposure to certain body fluids a workplace hazard. This is because harmful sexually transmitted infections (STIs)—like chlamydia, hepatitis B and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)—spread from infected people to healthy people through contact with blood and certain other body fluids. For this reason, current state regulations generally require employers to provide and ensure that their employees use protective equipment to prevent contact with certain body fluids in the workplace. In enforcing these regulations, Cal/OSHA is requiring performers to use condoms during sex on adult film sets. Cal/OSHA generally enforces these rules by responding to complaints. Over the two-year period of 2014 and 2015, Cal/OSHA cited four production companies for violations of these regulations.
Los Angeles County Law Specifically Requires Adult Film Condom Use. In November 2012, voters in Los Angeles County approved a ballot measure (Measure B) that specifically requires performers to use condoms during sex on adult film sets there.
Industry Practice Varies. Some adult film productions currently require or allow performers to wear condoms. However, despite state and local regulations, other producers and performers prefer to make adult films without condoms or other protective equipment. Parts of the industry instead use regular STI testing that aims to confirm that performers are free of harmful infections.
Impartial analysis / Proposal
Proposition 60 places in the California Labor Code additional requirements, as summarized in Figure 1, related to workplace health and safety on adult film sets in this state. This measure specifically applies to sexual intercourse on adult film sets “in which performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis.”
Clarifies State Labor Code to Specifically Require Condoms. This measure clarifies how some key provisions of existing workplace health and safety rules apply specifically to the adult film industry. It puts into the Labor Code a specific requirement that adult film producers provide condoms and ensure that performers use them (as opposed to the existing, general workplace health and safety regulations about preventing contact with blood and certain other body fluids). This measure states that the condoms do not have to be visible in films distributed to consumers. However, adult film producers would need to be able to prove that performers actually used condoms.
Other Requirements on Adult Film Producers. This proposition requires adult film producers to be licensed by Cal/OSHA every two years and to notify Cal/OSHA whenever they make an adult film. Adult film producers would pay fees to Cal/OSHA to administer these new requirements. In addition, adult film producers would be required to pay for the costs of performers’ work-related STI prevention vaccines, STI tests, and medical examinations. The measure also requires adult film producers to keep records showing that they complied with the new requirements.
Expanded Time Frame for Enforcement. Under current law, Cal/OSHA generally has six months from the time of a workplace violation to complete its investigation and issue a citation. The proposition allows enforcement actions for these adult film violations to be started within one year after the violation is or should have been discovered.
Expands Liability for Certain Workplace Health and Safety Violations. In addition to adult film producers, the measure makes adult film distributors and talent agents potentially liable for workplace health and safety violations placed into law by this measure. The measure also sets financial penalties for violations of these requirements.
Allows Individuals to Bring Lawsuits on Regulatory Violations. Under the measure, any California resident could request Cal/OSHA to address some alleged adult film workplace health and safety violations. If Cal/OSHA does not take certain actions within specific time frames, that person could file a civil action against the adult film producer. If the individual prevails, he or she would be able to recover their legal costs and receive 25 percent of any penalties paid by a defendant in such a lawsuit, with the rest being paid to the state. The measure provides that its penalties will not apply to adult film performers or employees, so long as those individuals have no financial interest in a film and are not producers of the film.
Likely Reductions in Tax Revenue. Industry participants would respond to this measure’s increased regulatory and enforcement requirements in many ways. Some parts of the adult film industry would comply with the measure while others might choose to relocate outside of California. It is also possible that some adult film producers would try to evade state and local law enforcement while continuing to make adult films here. Adult film wages and business income in California would likely decline and, as a result, the measure would likely reduce state and local tax revenues by several million dollars per year.
Regulatory and Enforcement Costs and Revenues. The ongoing state government costs to implement this law could exceed $1 million annually. Most of the costs would be covered by new fees on adult film producers. Any penalty revenue would be deposited into the state General Fund.
Other Public Budget Effects. The measure could have other fiscal effects on California governments. For example, a reduction in employment in the adult film industry could result in a minor increase in state or local costs for health or social services programs. The measure could also result in fewer transmissions of STIs, which could somewhat reduce state or local costs for publicly funded health programs. Overall, the net effect on publicly funded health and social services programs probably would be minor.
YES vote means
There would be additional workplace health and safety requirements placed on adult film productions in California and additional ways to enforce those requirements.
NO vote means
Adult film productions in California would continue to be subject to current state and local workplace health and safety requirements, including the rules now interpreted to require condom use in adult film productions.
Nobody should have to risk their health in order to keep their job!
A YES vote for Prop. 60 is a vote to protect California adult film workers from disease. Porn producers refuse to provide a safe workplace for their performers. As a result, thousands of workers have been exposed to serious and life-threatening diseases.It is time to hold the pornographers accountable for worker safety and health in California’s adult film industry.
Since 1992, the law has required condom use in all adult films produced in California. According to Cal/OSHA, “Condoms are required to protect adult film workers from exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.” Prop. 60 closes loopholes in the existing law and improves enforcement so pornographers can more readily be held accountable for the same workplace protection law that applies to every other California industry. Prop. 60 only holds adult film producers, directors, and agents accountable—not adult film performers.
The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and other major medical and public health institutions support the use of condoms in adult films. But pornographers blatantly ignore the law. They complain condom use in their films will hurt their profits. They fire and blacklist adult film performers who want to protect themselves with condoms.
When pornographers ignore the law, they expose their workers to HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis, and human papillomavirus (HPV). Scientific studies show adult film performers are far more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. Thousands of cases of diseases—which can spread to the larger community—have been documented within the adult film industry in recent years.
Pornographers say adult film performers are tested for disease. But testing (which the workers must pay for!) is inadequate. It does not effectively identify many sexually transmitted diseases in a timely manner. Condoms provide important additional protections. Vote YES on Prop. 60 for worker safety!
We all pay the price because pornographers refuse to play by the rules. The lifetime cost to treat HIV is nearly half a million dollars per person. This industry has cost California taxpayers an estimated $10 million in HIV treatment expenses alone. In addition, taxpayers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to treat related diseases.
The need to strengthen existing law is particularly urgent now because the adult film industry is struggling to make profits. As a result, pornographers are more likely than ever to resist condom use. Prop. 60 provides health officials with the enforcement tools they need to help ensure the law is enforced and adult film workers are adequately protected.
Pornographers have taken advantage of young working women and men for too long. Pornographers must not be allowed to continue to violate the law that protects these California workers. This is about fairness and responsibility. Visit FAIR4CA.org for more information.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 60!
CYNTHIA DAVIS, M.P.H., Board Chair AIDS Healthcare Foundation
GARY A. RICHWALD, M.D., M.P.H., Former Director Los Angeles County Sexually Transmitted Disease Program
DERRICK BURTS, HIV-Positive Former Adult Film Worker
VOTE NO ON PROP. 60: This is what happens when one special interest group has access to millions of dollars to fund a political campaign. This 13-page measure is so poorly drafted it is the only initiative this year OPPOSED by the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and the CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY. Even the California Libertarian Party opposes Prop. 60.
The proponent wants you to believe it is about worker safety. However, Prop. 60 is OPPOSED by the ONLY independent all adult film performer organization in the state, with hundreds of dues paying members. In a letter to the California Secretary of State, the President of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee, Chanel Preston stated the initiative is dangerous for the health and safety of performers.
Prop. 60 is also OPPOSED by many civil rights and public health organizations, including Equality California, the Transgender Law Center, AIDS Project Los Angeles, the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.
Prop. 60 is opposed by business leaders such as the Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA).
The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers “millions of dollars” and threatens the safety of performers.
The initiative creates a new private right of action authorizing the Proponent AND all 38 MILLION RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA to file lawsuits directly against those who produce or distribute adult content, which could include adult film performers, even injured performers, on-set crew, and cable and satellite television companies. No other worker in California can be sued this way. VOTE NO ON PROP. 60.
HERE ARE THE FACTS:
- According to California’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor Prop. 60 could cost taxpayers “MILLIONS OF DOLLARS” each year; money that could be spent on education, health care, libraries, police and fire services.
- The ultimate trial lawyer ballot measure, Prop. 60 gives EVERY Californian the right to sue those who produce or distribute adult content, which could include adult film performers, including LGBT performers, on-set workers, and cable and satellite television companies. The initiative’s presumption of liability could apply to every future California-produced adult film on cable television.
- Prop. 60 could force adult film performers to publicly disclose private information, including their legal names and HOME ADDRESSES.
- State employees will have to “review” adult films.
- The named proponent is authorized to be “sworn in” as an agent of the state; only the Legislature can VOTE him out of the position.
- Married couples who distribute films produced in their own homes could be sued.
Prop. 60 will cost taxpayers millions of dollars, could violate worker privacy, and even make the Proponent an agent of the state—indemnified by taxpayers like you.
That’s why you should join performers, business leaders, the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY and VOTE NO ON PROP. 60.
MARK LENO, Senator 11th District
JAY GLADSTEIN, M.D. Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases
JESSICA YASUKOCHI, Vice President Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Replies to Arguments FOR
Prop. 60 is dangerous for workers, and costly to voters like you. This initiative is the only one opposed by all major political parties.
One special interest group has spent millions of dollars drafting Prop. 60 and funding the campaign. Is it a surprise that this special interest group will also profit from the proposition? They will be given authority to file countless lawsuits against workers in adult films and can pocket special fines. Every on-set worker could be sued.
Prop. 60 also gives ANY resident of California the ability to sue adult film performers who produce adult films. Even an injured worker. Can you imagine the potential for abuse and harassment? And the cost. It’s no wonder the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates a potential cost to California taxpayers of “millions of dollars.”
This is what happens when a special interest group spends millions of dollars on a complex thirteen-page initiative: a measure with so many flaws and problems that it negates any positive components. It even weakens current workplace safety.
OPPOSITION to Prop. 60 is growing, including public health and civil rights organizations, such as Equality California, APAC (the largest, independent performer organization) and LA LGBT Center. The CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY oppose Prop. 60.
Prop. 60 is an “all-or-nothing” approach funded by a single special interest group. Worker safety policy should be written with everyone’s input. VOTE NO ON PROP. 60. To learn more, visit Californians Against Worker Harassment at DontHarassCA.com
RACHEL “CHANEL PRESTON” TAYLOR, President of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee
JERE INGRAM, CIH, CSP, FAIHA, former Chair of the California Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board
MARIE LOUISE “NINA HARTLEY” LEVINE, Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Replies to Arguments AGAINST
Make no mistake about who opposes Prop. 60. It’s the greedy porn producers. They routinely put adult film performers’ safety and health at risk by forcing them to perform without condoms. Recent studies found that one in four performers have been sick with serious sexually transmitted diseases. Nobody should have to risk getting a serious disease to keep their job!
The profits-before-safety lawbreaking in the adult film industry is well documented. California safety and health officials—Cal/OSHA—have issued HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in citations against nearly two dozen pornographers for violating rules that clearly require condoms in adult films.
But Cal/OSHA officials have frequently been blocked by loopholes and enforcement limitations. Prop. 60 will close the loopholes and strengthen Cal/OSHA’s ability to enforce existing law. This is about fairness and responsibility!
Prop. 60 is supported by NUMEROUS MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS, including:
- California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses
- California Academy of Preventive Medicine
- Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—District IX
- American Sexual Health Association
- Beyond AIDS
- California Communities United Institute
Pornographers have abused performers for far too long.
Performers need and deserve the same workplace safety and health protections that construction workers, farmworkers, nurses, and millions of other California employees already enjoy.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 60!
JEFFREY KLAUSNER, M.D., M.P.H., Professor UCLA School of Medicine
PAULA TAVROW, Ph.D., Director UCLA Bixby Program on Population and Reproductive Health
AMANDA GULLESSERIAN, Founder International Entertainment Adult Union (IEAU)
- Equality California
- Los Angeles County Democratic Party
- The Bay Area Reporter
- The Orange County Register
- The Mercury News
- San Francisco Chronicle
- San Diego Union-Tribune
- Sacramento Bee
- Los Angeles Times
- Libertarian Party (California)
- California Republican Party
- California Democratic Party
- See more organizations against here.
Yes on Prop. 60
No on Prop. 60
Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.