California Lawmakers Approve Stricter UGC Requirements for Adult Sites

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers have approved legislation that would create new compliance requirements for adult websites hosting user-generated content, sending the bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom for consideration.

If AB 1705 becomes law, websites that allow users to upload sexually explicit material would face several new requirements. Uploaders would have to provide an email address and certify, under penalty of perjury, that everyone depicted in the material was not a minor when it was created, consented to being depicted and consented to the material being uploaded. Websites would also have to verify the uploader’s email address before allowing content to be posted and keep the certification and related information for at least seven years.

The legislation would allow people depicted in content to bring civil actions seeking up to $75,000 in damages for each violation, as well as punitive damages and legal fees. Public prosecutors could also pursue civil cases and seek penalties of $25,000 per violation, along with other forms of relief and legal costs.

Under the bill, every day that adult content violating the requirements remains available would count as a separate violation.

2257 vs. AB 1705

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein said AB 1705 shouldn’t be viewed simply as a California version of federal 2257 regulations. Instead, he said, it would create additional obligations for adult websites that accept uploads from users or creators.

“There is certainly some overlap with the compliance infrastructure that responsible adult operators already maintain under 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and existing consent/recordkeeping practices, but AB 1705 goes considerably further in several respects,” Silverstein cautioned. “Section 2257 is principally an age-verification and recordkeeping regime applicable to producers of sexually explicit material. AB 1705 creates an additional consent-and-upload certification regime and places affirmative obligations directly on operators of websites accepting sexually explicit user-generated content.”

Attorney Lawrence Walters similarly described AB 1705 as imposing a “distinct and significant” collection of new responsibilities that extend beyond the requirements of Section 2257. He said platforms should not assume the California legislation simply repeats existing federal rules.

“AB 1705 is a platform-liability and pre-upload certification statute aimed at user-generated material, including questions of consent to distribution that 2257 does not address,” Walters explained. “Those are different issues, and they generate different operational, legal, and First Amendment concerns.”

For tube sites, clip platforms and other businesses built heavily around user uploads, Walters said the legislation would create “a new pre-publication compliance layer that must be designed, staffed, documented and defended.”

Silverstein also expects California operators could have additional compliance work if the bill takes effect.

“They will need to examine their upload workflows, performer consent documentation, uploader certifications, email verification, record-retention procedures and content moderation practices,” he said. “For some established platforms, this may mean modifying existing compliance systems. For smaller or less sophisticated user-generated-content sites, the burden could be considerably greater.”

What About Previously Uploaded Content?

The question of older content could prove more complicated. Silverstein said AB 1705 doesn’t expressly require websites to obtain a new certification for every piece of material uploaded before the law takes effect, but the legislation’s broader duties for operators aren’t limited to newly uploaded content. Material already on a site could still fall under an operator’s continuing obligation to exercise “ordinary care” and “reasonable diligence” to ensure that content doesn’t violate the law.

“There is some ambiguity as to exactly what steps an operator must take with respect to legacy content, and I expect that issue could eventually become the subject of litigation or regulatory interpretation,” Silverstein said. “But I would not read the bill as creating a blanket exemption for content simply because it was uploaded before the law took effect, and I would not advise operators to assume that their existing content libraries are grandfathered.”

Walters expects the legislation to draw a distinction between material already online and uploads made after the law’s proposed effective date of Jan. 1, 2027. The certification and verified-email requirements, he said, could not reasonably be imposed on uploads made before the law takes effect. But the obligation to ensure that material displayed on a website complies with the law would continue.

“The certification and email-verification rules do not appear to reach backward,” Walters said. “However, leaving previously uploaded files displayed after Jan. 1, 2027 appears to be within the display duty. There is no safe harbor for legacy catalogs, no ‘notice-and-takedown only’ defense written into the bill, and no phase-in for existing libraries. Combined with the daily-violation rule, the enrolled text is written to reach already-published material that remains on the platform after the law takes effect.

“How a court would treat that obligation as applied to a massive pre-2027 library — First Amendment, Section 230 and due-process arguments included — is a separate question from what the bill text itself covers,” Walters added. “‘Reasonable diligence’ is an inherently fact-intensive standard that will be litigated after the fact. The combination of high statutory damages and a private right of action will invite claims — some meritorious, many not — against operators who already invest heavily in keeping minors and nonconsensual material off their platforms.”

AB 1705 is now before Newsom, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the legislation. If he takes neither action by the deadline, the bill will become law automatically.