Who Filed the Complaints Against Kink? It Wasn’t Just AHF

Contrary to Peter Acworth’s claims It was a performer, and it wasn’t Cameron Bay, at least this one wasn’t.  Read On:

This is a transcript of an official complaint filed in September with Cal/OSHA against Kink.com. Identifying information has been redacted to protect the identity of the performer. It is a separate complaint from Cameron Bay’s and in fact this is likely the complaint that brought about the first round of fines for Kink. There are still several pending OSHA complaints against Kink as reported this week n SF Weekly and on your site. With a willful violator designation on one of those complaints, you can bet there will be more fines coming for Kink.

It should also be noted that this complaint was filed by AHF on behalf and with the cooperation of the performer in question.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 6309, the Division may, on its own motion or upon complaint, investigate “an employment or place of employment” which “is not safe or is injurious to the welfare of the employee.” The undersigned hereby reports that workplaces in the adult film industry, including but not limited to those operated and controlled by KINK.COM (AKA Kink Studios, LLC) are unsafe and are in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193, governing measures that must be taken to control the spread of bloodborne pathogens in the workplace. KINK.COM has allowed, and upon information and belief may have encouraged, employees to engage in activities that are highly likely to spread bloodborne pathogens in the workplace.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation is filing this complaint on behalf and with the cooperation of former KINK.COM employee [legal name withheld] AKA [performer name]. [Performer] reports that on [date withheld], he and other adult film employees were exposed to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials in two media/films from KINK.COM’s [redacted] series. Prior to the production date, [performer] tested non-reactive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) on [date withheld] via RNA testing. After the production date, [performer] tested reactive for HIV on [date withheld] via RNA testing. [Performer] received his HIV positive status via e-mail with no phone call or follow up. He is still listed on the industry database, PASS, as clear to work and was recently contacted by KINK.COM to perform despite the industry moratorium. There is strong indication that this is the fifth acute HIV infection. We believe four of these acute HIV infections can be directly associated with KINK.COM shoots within specific time frames. Multiple performers have indicated that common practice is to take performers to their armory, make them sign off on a waiver for STDs, and take them on shuttle buses to closed businesses (bars, adult stores, etc.). KINK.COM solicits invited members of the public to be involved in the sexual encounter. The public audience is inebriated and provided free alcohol. There is no proof of testing verification. [Performer] will make himself available for questions and follow up. His home phone number is [redacted].

The Division has acknowledged that “workers in the adult film industry face particular hazards because actors perform sex acts in the course of making the films or videos” and that “[m]any diseases can be transmitted through blood, semen, vaginal fluid and fecal matter, or by mucous membrane contact.” (see, “Vital Information for Workers and Employers in the Adult Film Industry,” available at www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/adultfilmindustry.html)

The Division has further acknowledged that performers in the adult film industry are employees for purposes of employment safety laws and regulations. (Id.). As the activities depicted in the film series [redacted] and [redacted] clearly demonstrates, workplace activities are highly likely to spread bloodborne pathogens in the workplace, the Division may, and should, require KINK.COM to take immediate measures for the protection of employees, including the use of condoms, during the production of adult films. Exposures are continuous and ongoing.

92050cookie-checkWho Filed the Complaints Against Kink? It Wasn’t Just AHF

Who Filed the Complaints Against Kink? It Wasn’t Just AHF

Share This

14 Responses

  1. I’d like to point out to Mr. Stabile that no one ever mentioned the word “scandal” in regards to this story. This new information does seem to contradict your previous statement this week that “the complaints weren’t filed by anyone on set, as would normally be the case in an OSHA complaint.” Care to clarify?

  2. In looking at the data related to nationwide OSHA reports related to the motion picture code 7812 for a five year period from 2/4/09 to 2/4/14 with the proud boasting by AHF about the 16 complaints they initiated in 2009 coupled with specific companies named specifically….nearly half the porn reports were initiated by other sources.

    When you take it further to look at the sequential report numbers the AHF activity is clearly definable. This is affirmed by looking at the Establishment name associated with the report numbers….clustering of gay porn companies and the grouping of specific companies named by AHF…none of this explains away 40 reports associated with 32 unique porn establishments over a five year period.

    Note: “report” includes accident, complaint, planned, prog rel, unprog rel, referral and follow-up. 29 reports are complaints for 23 unique porn companies.

  3. I don’t think anyone cares who filed the complaint other than the industry… They are the ones who paint themselves as the victims of the AHF’s unfair and bullying tactics.

    All this proves is that there are PERFORMERS out there who are filing OSHA complaints and not just AHF… who to blame? AHF or the performer? Because we all know there has to be someone to blame….

  4. @mikestabile

    Your defenses are exposing additional vulnerabilities. Until you raised the mysterious four and five it wasn’t even a part of the equation. This “document” carries much more weight to prove at least a fourth performer than any unsubstantiated denial from you or FSC. This indicates that AHF backed up from a foolish pissing match that could only be won by violating medical privacy laws or exposing a patient they sought to protect from realistic retaliation.

    Have you considered that no specific shoot has been identified to further protect the performer who exercised their right to medical privacy? Ever hear of whistleblower protection?

  5. @lacey

    Wasn’t little red riding hood afraid of the big bad wolf too? The way some folks tell it I wonder if AHF is sleeping in grannies bed.

  6. I think the real issue for Kink here won’t be the fines of OSHA, but that being found guilty may leave them open for civil action. Anyone filing a suit against them would only have to point to the fine / conviction to show that Kink failed to meet the standards, which would make it a non-debatable fact in court, not just an assertion.

    My guess is the lawyers are gathering in the masses, just like witches at black masses… you can figure out the rest 🙂

  7. @rawalex,,,,,BINGO, you hit the bullseye. Anyone remember Brooke Ashley, of course you do, she got HIV supposedly from Marc Wallice in the gangbang. In her workers comp case it was ruled that she was infected on the set,,,,,,but her attorneys NEVER provided any evidence that Wallice, or anybody else on the set was HIV+. No test results, no testimony , nothing, yet she still won. She tested negative before the shoot, and positive after the shoot. The shoot involved activity that placed her at high risk, and they ruled in her favor despite the usual industry protestations that she got if off set. The other side in this case called her a whore, presented evidence that she was reckless in her personal life, and still they lost.

    Same with cameron, she was negative before the shoot, and postive after the shoot. Lets just call Cameron the new Brooke Ashley.

  8. @jilted
    The industry shouted from rooftops about that case trying to convince everyone of their position that she wasn’t an employee and didn’t have a case. In 2007 the judge ruled that she was an employee. Kernes promised upcoming ringside advantage article mysteriously never happened.

    From the moment they ruled she was an employee all the way through blaming her for personal risks to the appeals to Ca Supreme Court contesting stuff like who is the producer that gets fined for not having Workmans Comp insurance and to this day no one affiliated with FSC has publicly acknowledged the rulings. Their lawyers hint around but avoid any direct reference.

    The unnamed performer in this complaint raises the same issues as Cameron with the added twist as an unknown and possibly having no personal relationship with the other performers who tested positive of raising the stakes tremendously.

  9. Of course when this ruling came down the industry press virtually ignored it. I posted about it on Adultdvdtalk.com. and it started a large thread on that site. Michael fatorossi chimed in and basicly agreeed with everything I said. Then LIB chimed in, trying to find out who posted the story on Adultdvd. Then AVn ran one ariticle I think, and never followed up.

    To this day AVN has never mentioned that all of AIM’s records were, as the court ruled, ‘willfully and intentionally destroyed” So much for journalistic integrity. Yes, AIM records were destroyed, but lets just say that photocopies are a bitch.

  10. @jilted
    Lol adultdvd is where I found the case number to look it up…there was a great thread in 2007 with the employee ruling where more than a few performers shared great stuff. Avn (kernes) ran an In depth play by play of the hearing in the Autumn with the promise that in December when the ruling was expected he would give further legal analysis….guess he’s still digesting the info?

    Yep copies and screenshots are a like a bitch in heat ready to bite ya in the ass:)

  11. Better than screenshots is archive.org. On this site you can put in any web address and it will show you the site as it was years ago. I used this when Julie Meadows deleted her interview with Kurt trpetow(or whatever his name is) Yep, once its on the internet its there forever, even if you delete it. AVN also deleted a bunch of stuff from their archives about two years ago, but its all still available at archive.org.

  12. @jilted
    Good to know…FSC also deleted tons of APHSS/PASS stuff from their site. It was fun to jot down a reference one day and hours later it was gone…that’s what started the screen shots 🙂

Leave a Reply

Mike South

Offering the latest adult industry news and porn star gossip! Have a story? Contact us!

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to Mike South and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 11.9K other subscribers