SACRAMENTO, Cal. — The California state legislature has approved AB 1705, a bill that would impose stricter compliance standards for user-generated content (UGC) on adult websites. The bill now awaits the governor’s signature and, if signed, would establish new requirements for sites permitting users to upload sexually explicit content.

The bill, if it becomes law, would require site operators to mandate that users submit an email address and a statement certifying, under penalty of perjury, that each individual depicted in the content was not a minor at the time of creation, consented to being depicted, and consented to the content being uploaded. Operators would also need to verify each user’s email address before uploading is permitted and retain the statement and information for at least seven years.

Sites and uploaders could face civil actions from depicted individuals for damages up to $75,000 per violation, along with punitive damages and legal fees. Public prosecutors could also initiate civil actions, seeking penalties of $25,000 per violation, in addition to other relief and fees. Each day that adult content not conforming to the new regulations is displayed would constitute a separate violation.

AB 1705 vs. 2257 Regulations

Industry attorneys Corey Silverstein and Lawrence Walters have indicated that AB 1705 introduces significant new obligations for adult sites that permit users or creators to upload content, distinguishing it from existing 2257 regulations.

Silverstein stated that while there is some overlap with the compliance infrastructure maintained by responsible adult operators under 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and existing consent and recordkeeping practices, AB 1705 goes considerably further. He explained that Section 2257 is primarily an age-verification and recordkeeping regime for producers of sexually explicit material. In contrast, 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.

Walters similarly noted that AB 1705 would impose a distinct and significant new set of obligations beyond 2257. He cautioned that responsible platforms should not assume the statute merely restates existing 2257 demands. Walters described AB 1705 as a platform-liability and pre-upload certification statute targeting user-generated material, including questions of consent to distribution that 2257 does not address. He added that these are different issues, generating different operational, legal, and First Amendment concerns.

For tube sites, clip platforms, and other UGC-heavy operators, Walters said the practical effect would be a new pre-publication compliance layer that must be designed, staffed, documented, and defended. Silverstein also foresees potential work for site operators in California if the bill becomes law. He advised that they would need to examine their upload workflows, performer consent documentation, uploader certifications, email verification, record-retention procedures, and content moderation practices. Silverstein suggested that for some established platforms, this might mean modifying existing compliance systems, while for smaller or less sophisticated user-generated-content sites, the burden could be considerably greater.

Application to Previously Uploaded Content

Regarding the retroactive application of the proposed law to content already uploaded and displayed, Silverstein noted that the bill does not clearly require websites to obtain a new AB 1705 certification for every piece of content uploaded before the law took effect. However, he emphasized that the broader obligations imposed on website operators are not limited to newly uploaded content. Previously uploaded content would still appear to be subject to the operator’s ongoing duty of ordinary care and reasonable diligence in ensuring content does not violate the law.

Silverstein acknowledged some ambiguity regarding the exact steps an operator must take with respect to legacy content, anticipating that this issue could become subject to litigation or regulatory interpretation. He stated that he would not interpret the bill as creating a blanket exemption for content simply because it was uploaded before the law took effect, and would not advise operators to assume their existing content libraries are grandfathered.

Walters believes the bill is likely to apply differently to existing content compared to content uploaded after the effective date of January 1, 2027. While the pre-upload certification statement and verified email provisions cannot logically be required for uploads occurring before the law becomes operative, he explained that the duty to ensure content on a site does not violate the law has no cutoff date.

Walters stated that the certification and email-verification rules do not appear to reach backward. However, he noted that leaving previously uploaded files displayed after January 1, 2027, appears to fall within the display duty. He added that 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, Walters said the enrolled text is written to reach already-published material that remains on the platform after the law takes effect.

Walters also commented that how a court would treat that obligation as applied to a massive pre-2027 library, including First Amendment, Section 230, and due-process arguments, is a separate question from what the bill text itself covers. He described "reasonable diligence" as an inherently fact-intensive standard that will be litigated after the fact. Walters concluded that the combination of high statutory damages and a private right of action will invite claims, some meritorious and many not, against operators who already invest heavily in keeping minors and nonconsensual material off their platforms.

The bill is currently on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until September 30 to sign or veto the legislation. If he does neither, the bill will automatically become law.

Key Facts

  • AB 1705 has passed the California state legislature and awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature.
  • The bill would require adult sites with UGC to verify user email addresses and obtain sworn statements of consent and age for depicted individuals.
  • Site operators would need to retain these records for at least seven years.
  • Violations could lead to civil actions with damages up to $75,000 per violation for individuals and $25,000 for public prosecutors.
  • Each day non-conforming content is displayed would constitute a separate violation.
  • The bill is distinct from 2257 regulations, imposing new pre-upload certification and platform liability obligations.