Fact check: Does Proposition 60 allow Californians to sue adult film performers, crew members, and television companies?
October 27, 2016
By Paul Brennan
A proposed state law to mandate the use of condoms in adult films is among the propositions on the ballot in California.[1] Opponents of Proposition 60—the Adult Films, Condoms, Health Requirements, Initiative Statute—claim the enforcement provisions of the ballot measure, if enacted, would allow lawsuits against “adult film performers, even injured performers, on-set crew, and cable and satellite television companies.”[2]
Are opponents correct about who could be sued if Proposition 60 is enacted?
Technically, yes. However, two criteria would first have to be met before such lawsuits could be filed. First, a civil suit could be filed against performers, crew, and television companies only if the state does not take enforcement action against alleged violations within statutory time limits. Second, performers, crew, and television companies could be sued only if they also “make, produce, finance, or direct one or more adult films filmed in California and sell, offer to sell, or cause to be sold such adult film in exchange for commercial consideration.”[3]
Background: Proposition 60
Proposition 60, an initiated state statute, qualified for the ballot on November 4, 2015. Its officially designated proponent is Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.[4] The foundation is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit organization and, as October 21, 2016, it was the sole funder of the only political action committee registered to support Proposition 60.[5] The only political action committee registered to oppose Proposition 60 is sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition, a nonprofit organization based in Canoga Park, California, which describes itself as “the national trade association to the adult entertainment and pleasure products industry.”[6]
If Proposition 60 is enacted, any legislation to amend it must “further its purposes,” and be passed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature and signed by the governor.[3]Amending the bill to alter its provisions in a different way, or repeal part or all of the statute, would require another ballot proposition approved by a majority of voters.
According to the official summary of the measure prepared by the Office of the California Attorney General, Proposition 60:
- 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 a state health license, and to post condom requirements at film sites.
- Permits state officials, performers, or any California resident to enforce violations.[7]
According to the California attorney general, Proposition 60 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.”[7] Producer is defined in the proposition as:
| “ | [A]ny person that makes, produces, finances, or directs one or more adult films filmed in California and that sells, offers to sell, or causes to be sold such adult film in exchange for commercial consideration.[3][8] | ” |
Enforcement
Proposition 60 designates California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) as the agency in charge of enforcement of its provisions. Cal/OSHA would be able to take enforcement action through an administrative process, or “via a civil action brought by [Cal/OSHA] or its designee, a civil prosecutor, an adult film performer…or an individual residing in the State of California.”[3]
Proposition 60, if enacted, would create “a rebuttable presumption” that any adult film without visible condoms that is distributed for commercial purposes in California violates the statute. Any individual who believes a film is in violation could file a complaint with Cal/OSHA. If Cal/OSHA rejects the complaint, fails to respond to the complaint within 21 days, or does not begin an enforcement action within 45 days of receiving the complaint, the individual may then file a civil lawsuit against the parties designated by law. If successful, the plaintiff is eligible to recover “reasonable” legal fees and entitled to 25 percent of the fine levied against those found liable. The fine for not using condoms in a film would be the greater of
| “ | (1) Not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult films.
(2) Not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total cost of producing the adult films.[3][8] |
” |
Conclusion
California’s Proposition 60, if enacted, would require the use of condoms in adult films. Opponents claim that “adult film performers, even injured performers, on-set crew, and cable and satellite television companies” could be sued under the enforcement provisions of the ballot measure. Proponents deny that claim. Ballotpedia has determined that the opponents’ claim is technically true, However, two criteria would first have to be met before such lawsuits could be filed. First, a civil suit could be filed against performers, crew, and television companies only if the state does not take enforcement action within statutory time limits. Second, performers, crew, and television companies could be sued only if they also make, produce, finance, or direct one or more adult films filmed in California and sell, offer to sell, or cause to be sold such adult film in exchange for commercial consideration.
See also
- Fact check/Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters?
- Fact check/Would inmates convicted of violent crimes in California be eligible for early parole under Proposition 57?
- Fact check/Is there a federal court order that would prohibit sex offenders in California from being paroled under Proposition 57?
Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2026, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.
Sources and Notes
- ↑ Proposition 60 defines an adult film as “any recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast of any film, video, multimedia, or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis.”
- ↑ Office of California Secretary of State, “Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 60, Arguments and Rebuttals,” accessed October 25, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Office of California Secretary of State, “Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 60, Text of Proposed Law,” accessed October 25, 2016
- ↑ State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, “Initiative 15-0004, Adult Films, Condoms, Health Requirements, Initiative Statute,” accessed October 25, 2016
- ↑ Office of California Secretary of State, “Campaign Finance: Yes on Prop 60, for Adult Industry Responsibility (Fair) Committee, with major funding by AIDS Healthcare Foundation,” accessed October 26, 2016
- ↑ Office of California Secretary of State, “No on Proposition 60, Californians Against Worker Harassment, Sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition,” accessed October 26, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Office of California Secretary of State, “Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 60, Official Title and Summary,” accessed October 25, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
Contact
More from Fact Check by Ballotpedia
 October 13, 2016 |
 October 10, 2016 |
 October 7, 2016 |
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
