California has added a new layer of rules for websites that host user-uploaded sexually explicit content. Assembly Bill 1705, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom and chaptered on 30 September 2026, takes effect on 1 January 2027. It is not a rewrite of federal Section 2257. It is a separate, state-level consent and recordkeeping regime aimed squarely at platforms that accept uploads.
This reporting is part of the Sex Worker Visibility Project: coverage of the laws and systems that shape how adult work is produced, hosted, and policed. If that work is useful to you, support it on Patreon or Buy Me a Coffee.
Under AB 1705, before a user may upload sexually explicit content to a covered site, the user must submit a verified email address and a written statement, certified under penalty of perjury. That statement must affirm three things about every person depicted: they were not a minor when the content was created; they consented to being depicted; and they consented to the content being uploaded to that website. The operator must verify the email before allowing the upload, and must retain the statement and related information in a readily available format for at least seven years.
The enforcement teeth are civil, not primarily criminal. A depicted individual may sue for up to $75,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Public prosecutors may also bring civil actions seeking $25,000 per violation and other relief. Knowingly false information in the certification is an infraction with a $1,000 fine. The statute’s structure is designed to create both a paper trail and a private right of action that does not depend on a prosecutor deciding to move first.
Sponsors were Democratic Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Republican Assemblymember Diane Dixon — a bipartisan pair. The bill passed both chambers with near-unanimous votes before reaching the governor’s desk. Industry lawyers and the Free Speech Coalition have been clear that many large platforms already collect model releases, run age checks, and retain documents. The practical question is not whether consent should exist; it is whether a state can impose a parallel certification-and-retention scheme, with high per-violation exposure, on any site accessible in California’s digital space.
That last point is the live legal risk. Counsel representing adult operators have flagged extraterritorial reach, the perjury certification, and the way damages can accumulate as First Amendment and due process concerns likely to be tested in court. Others note that uncertainty about what counts as “reasonable care” can push platforms toward defensive removals of lawful content simply to limit liability. For independent creators, the immediate effect is more friction at upload: another form, another verification step, another record that must survive for seven years even if the platform’s business model changes.
AB 1705 sits alongside, not inside, the federal 2257 framework. Section 2257 is primarily an age-verification and producer recordkeeping regime. California’s law is a platform-facing, pre-upload consent certification regime that also asks whether the people in the frame agreed to distribution on that specific site. Operators who already treat consent as non-negotiable will still have to map the new workflow, retention schedule, and litigation exposure onto existing systems before January.
For workers, the useful distinction is between the principle and the architecture. Stronger documented consent can protect people whose material is uploaded without agreement. A high-stakes private right of action can also make smaller platforms and collaborative accounts more expensive to run. How courts interpret “ordinary care” and how platforms redesign upload flows will decide which of those effects dominates once the law is live.