Editor's Note: This story was updated on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, to incorporate additional details from Friday’s class certification order and the March 11, 2025, order on Vixen Media Group’s motion for summary judgment issued by U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu, including the court's analysis of loan-out LLC structures and independent contractor agreements under California's ABC test. It also clarifies the potential implications for studios using direct payroll versus loan-out arrangements.

A federal judge has certified a class action against Vixen Media Group, potentially opening the door for hundreds of performers to pursue wage claims against the studio behind the award-winning brands Vixen, Blacked, Tushy, and several others.

The decision, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu, comes three years after performer Kenzie Anne first sued Vixen and its co-founder Mike Miller in May of 2023.

In the lawsuit, Kenzie Anne alleges that Vixen exploits and mistreats its talent by consistently violating California Labor Code. The lawsuit argues that Vixen performers should be classified as full-time employees based on the influence and control the company attempts to impose on the lives, bodies and careers of its talent—and also because of the excessive amount of time they are often asked to devote to projects without any additional compensation.

By instead listing them as independent contractors, the lawsuit says, Vixen is denying its performers the “fair pay and benefits” to which they’d be entitled as employees.

Vixen has fought the case aggressively for three years, filing four separate motions for dismissal. It moved for judgment on the pleadings. It sought sanctions, alleging Kenzie Anne had destroyed evidence. And it built its opposition to class certification around a sustained attack on her credibility as a class representative.

In a 17-page in-chambers order, Hsu rejected each one and certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which permits class actions seeking money damages. He named Los Angeles-based Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. as class counsel.

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED, and the proposed class is CERTIFIED,” Hsu wrote.

What “class certification” means: Instead of each performer having to file their own expensive, individual lawsuit, the judge has ruled that this case can proceed as a class action. That means one lawsuit can represent hundreds of current and former Vixen performers who were classified the same way. If the class wins or settles, everyone in the group can potentially receive compensation without having to sue separately.

Plaintiff’s expert, Sean Chasworth, estimated the class at roughly 767 performers. Vixen has so far produced contact information for 656. Either number puts this among the larger adult-industry wage-and-hour class actions to reach certification.

This ruling could reshape how major California adult film studios classify and compensate performers. While some studios reportedly place performers and crew directly on payroll as employees (without relying on loan-out LLCs), many others continue to treat talent as independent contractors. Those performers are often routed through personal loan-out companies and, to the best of PornCrush’s knowledge, do not commonly pay waiting-time penalties or other obligations under California Labor Code.

The ongoing Kenzie Anne class action against Vixen Media Group highlights the risks of this approach. Despite Kenzie operating through her loan-out LLC (Lola March LLC) and both parties treating the relationship as an independent contractor relationship (including via Loan Out Agreements), U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu recently granted class certification. The court ruled that contractual labels, tax treatment through the LLC, and the loan-out structure are not dispositive under the ABC test. The certified class includes performers who were classified as independent contractors and worked for Vixen. The court has not accepted Vixen’s framing of these as true business-to-business relationships shielded from employee classification.

Even studios that do place talent on payroll as employees are not necessarily shielded from liability if these rulings hold. They must still comply with full wage-and-hour obligations, including reimbursement of necessary business expenses, such as required STI testing and related travel, under California Labor Code Section 2802. A victory or settlement in the Vixen case could therefore pressure additional studios to re-evaluate pay for pre-shoot preparation time, timely final wages under California Labor Code Sections 201.5 and 203, expense reimbursements, and overall classification practices, regardless of whether they use direct payroll or loan-outs. This shift could significantly raise costs for studios (including waiting-time penalties, benefits, taxes, and reimbursements) and spark more litigation or voluntary reclassifications across the industry.

Performers would likely benefit in the short term, as studios may then be compelled to cover costs that today usually fall squarely on the shoulders of talent.

Who is in the class

The certified class covers, in the order’s words:

What the lawsuit actually claims

After three years of motion practice, the case has narrowed to a single legal theory: that Vixen owes “waiting-time penalties” under California Labor Code Section 203 to performers who were not paid all the wages they earned by their last day on a Vixen production.

Anne's argument boil's down to this: Vixen classified all of its performers as independent contractors and paid them flat per-scene rates. But by exercising near-total control over what they wore, where they shot, who they performed with, when they were tested, when they got their nails done, and even whether they could get a tattoo or piercing, Vixen treated them like employees.

As employees, the lawsuit claims, they should have been paid for off-set work that the flat scene rate did not cover: costume fittings, script memorization, STD testing, mandatory manicures and pedicures, hair and makeup prep, and the travel fees to all of those appointments. Because Vixen never paid for that work, the wages were unpaid when each performer’s engagement ended. And under Section 203, when an employer “willfully” fails to pay wages on time at the end of an employment, those wages keep ticking as a penalty for up to 30 more days.

Across hundreds of performers and potentially thousands of separate engagements over a roughly six-year class period that spans from 2020-2026, the potential liability adds up quickly. Chasworth, the plaintiff’s expert, has projected total waiting-time penalties exceeding $421 million if the class prevails on its claims. VXN disputes both the legal theory and the expert’s calculations.

The lawsuit no longer includes claims for unpaid minimum wage, expense reimbursement, and other wage-and-hour violations. Those were dismissed or dropped earlier in the case. It does not seek injunctive relief. This is a damages class only.

Hsu's reactions to Vixen's defense

The notable thing about Friday’s order is how directly Hsu went at the arguments Vixen had built its defense around for more than a year.

Vixen argued that Kenzie Anne could not represent the class because she had filed her own taxes as an independent contractor, taking deductions through her own LLC against her performer income. Hsu was unpersuaded. “Whether Plaintiff filed her taxes as an independent contractor has no bearing on her legal claim in this action that putative class members are misclassified as independent contractors,” he wrote, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that “the label placed by parties on their relationship is not dispositive.”

Vixen pointed to a long-running discovery fight over electronically stored information. The studio had moved for sanctions over alleged spoliation and won an order requiring Anne to submit her devices to a forensic search. Hsu held that “credibility problems do not automatically render a proposed class representative inadequate,” quoting Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp.

Vixen argued that other performers do not want to be reclassified as employees and would prefer to stay independent contractors. Hsu pointed out that opting out of the class is the cure: class members who like the contractor arrangement can simply not participate.

Vixen argued that Kenzie Anne is a former contractor and cannot fairly represent the interests of performers still working with the company. Hsu cited case law going the other way, including precedent suggesting former workers can be better class representatives because they are “free from any possible coercive influence of management.”

In a footnote, Hsu acknowledged that Vixen, in its oral argument, relied "heavily" on a 2017 Central District case called Alfred v. Pepperidge Farm, which maintains that a former contractor cannot represent a class of current ones.

"This Court simply disagrees," Hsu wrote.

The summary-judgment ruling, repositioned

Hsu also handled, without resolving, the most important ruling in the case before this one: his March 2025 finding, on partial summary judgment, that the “professional actor exemption” of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 12 applies to Kenzie Anne. That ruling was Vixen’s biggest legal win to date and means that certain wage-order protections do not apply to performers who fall under the exemption.

Vixen attempted to use that ruling against certification, arguing it makes Kenzie Anne’s situation atypical of the rest of the class. Hsu disagreed: “Even if the putative class members are exempt from IWC 12, that is a classwide issue and does not weigh against the typicality requirement.” In other words, whatever the wage-order exemption does to the merits, it applies to everyone in the class equally, and so it cannot be used to argue that the named plaintiff is different from the people she represents.

How that exemption affects what performers can recover is a question for trial or settlement.

What happens next

With certification granted, the case is heading to mediation on June 20. Hsu vacated all prior trial deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a new scheduling proposal within 30 days after mediation concludes.

Vixen has another option available before then. It can ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the certification order, under Federal Rule 23(f). That petition has to be filed within 14 days of the order, meaning Vixen has until roughly May 8 to decide. The Ninth Circuit denies most such petitions, but a granted petition would substantially delay the case and could unwind the certification.

Vixen is represented by Trey D. Brown, in-house at Vixen Media Group; Brian S. Ginter of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP; and Christian W. Waugh of Waugh PLLC. Brad S. Kane of the Kane Law Firm is also of record. PornCrush requested comment from defense counsel; this story will be updated if they respond.

Sarah H. Cohen, the lead attorney for the performers at Bibiyan Law Group, P.C., is heading the plaintiffs’ case.

"We appreciate Judge Hsu’s careful consideration of the issues and believe the ruling was fair and well-reasoned," Cohen told PornCrush via email. "We are pleased that the Court rejected the adequacy challenges and certified the Class. We look forward to advancing this now-certified class action through trial on behalf of (Kenzie Anne) and the Class Members we represent. We will address any remaining hurdles in reaching Class Members and ensuring a fair trial with the Court as they arise."