The Treasure Island Media lawsuit history centers on Cal/OSHA enforcement rather than performer suits: the San Francisco Bay Area studio, owned by Charles Steven Key, was cited and fined by California workplace safety regulators, and its decision to fight those citations produced a 2014 administrative ruling and a 2015 appeals board decision that reshaped how occupational safety law applies to adult film production.
The Cal/OSHA Citations and Fines
The enforcement began on March 25, 2010, when Cal/OSHA cited Treasure Island Media (TIM) for failing to develop an injury and illness prevention program and failing to maintain an exposure control plan under California’s bloodborne pathogens standard.1California State Legislature. AB 1576 Committee Analysis A five-month investigation produced three citations and a $21,470 fine. Investigators’ 23-page report found the studio had no exposure control plan and did not observe universal precautions to protect employees from contact with semen and other potentially infectious materials.2Queerty. Bareback Studio Treasure Island Fined $21K for Not Using Condoms
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation kept pressure on the case, filing formal “Notice of Safety or Health Hazards” complaints with Cal/OSHA in February 2013 that named Key and general manager Michael Triolo. AHF submitted 11 DVDs the company had produced between 2010 and 2012 as evidence that performers engaged in unprotected sex acts on set without safety measures.3AIDS Healthcare Foundation. AHF Goes After Bareback Gay Porn by Treasure Island TIM appealed the citations rather than paying or settling.
What the 2014 Ruling Established
On January 8, 2014, Cal/OSHA Administrative Law Judge Mary Droyovage issued a 36-page decision rejecting TIM’s appeal. It was the first time an adult film company had taken Cal/OSHA citations to a full administrative trial.4AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Cal/OSHA Issues Landmark Ruling Against Treasure Island Media on Bareback Porn
The ruling made four findings that reached well beyond this one studio. Adult film performers are employees under California law, not independent contractors. Section 5193 of the California Code of Regulations, the state’s bloodborne pathogens standard, covers adult film production. Barrier protection such as condoms is the only form of personal protective equipment that satisfies the standard during filmed sex acts. And the violations were serious: Droyovage found a “substantial probability that employees would suffer serious exposure resulting in serious physical harm or death.”5NBC Los Angeles. California Judge Issues Landmark Ruling on Unprotected Porn
TIM was found guilty of two violations of Section 5193: failing to establish an exposure control plan and failing to observe universal precautions. The judge initially set the penalty at $18,000, then reduced the fine for one violation to $6,300 and eliminated the other, cutting the total by roughly 60 percent.6AVN. Setback for Treasure Island Media in Cal/OSHA Condom Case Some reports put total penalties, including earlier citations, as high as $78,000.7CBS News Sacramento. San Francisco Porn Company’s $78K Fine Mostly Because of Condoms TIM announced plans to file a Petition for Reconsideration.
What the 2015 Appeals Decision Changed
On August 13, 2015, the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board upheld the safety citations and affirmed the two core holdings: the bloodborne pathogens standard applies to adult film production, and performers qualify as employees.8AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Cal/OSHA Institutes Stricter Porn Regs Because the citations dated to around 2010, the Board applied the older “substantial probability” standard then in effect and, on that basis, downgraded two of the bloodborne pathogen citations from “serious” to “general,” which reduced the associated fines.
Going forward, the Board announced, Cal/OSHA would apply a newer “realistic possibility” standard. Under that test, evidence of exposure alone, such as ejaculation on mucous membranes, is enough to classify a violation as serious. The change was intended to make it easier for the agency to enforce safety rules on future adult film sets.
Other Lawsuits Involving Treasure Island Media
Court records show two other cases naming TIM, neither involving workplace safety. In March 2014, the company filed a federal suit against Jeffrey R. Smith in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act. The case settled after mediation in September 2014 and was dismissed by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte; settlement terms were not made public.9CourtListener. Treasure Island Media, Inc. v. Smith
Earlier, in July 2006, TIM filed a fraud suit against Traviss Lothridge and others in San Francisco Superior Court. It was dismissed without prejudice two months later, in September 2006, and available records contain no further detail about the underlying dispute.10PlainSite. Treasure Island Media Inc. v. Traviss Lothridge et al.
No Performer Lawsuits on Record
No lawsuits filed by individual performers against TIM for HIV transmission, STI exposure, or unsafe working conditions appear in available court records. Performer-led litigation has occurred against other studios: three performers sued Cybernet Entertainment (Kink.com) in 2015 alleging on-set HIV infection, but that case involved a different company.11The Hollywood Reporter. Porn Actors’ HIV Lawsuits Aren’t Covered, Insurer Says The precedents established through TIM’s Cal/OSHA fight, particularly that performers are employees and that Section 5193 applies to adult film sets, remain the legal foundation for enforcement in California.