Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • IMMIGRATION—U.S.: Justices allow terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti to go into effect
    • AGENCY NEWS—FCC Chairman defends stance against ‘discriminatory’ DEI practices
    • DISCHARGE—7th Cir.: Fired transgender Chicago bus operator failed to establish sex discrimination, FMLA violations
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—7th Cir.: City not required to grant in-place promotion to firefighter who had suffered a stoke
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Judgment for USDA affirmed in disability bias suit brought by abused spouse
    • DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—Accounting professor’s pregnancy discrimination verdict affirmed on appeal in Michigan Tech case
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—4th Cir.: State police supervisor not entitled to qualified immunity in race-based hostile work environment suit
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—9th Cir.: Flight attendants fired after commenting on Equality Act revive religious bias claims
    • EMPLOYEE STATUS—N.D. Ill.: Chicago news rivals split wins in bitter copyright showdown
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court Finds Streamers are Employees Under New Jersey Law Despite Independent Contractor Status Under the FLSA
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—The New ‘ABCs’: NJDOL Adopts New Rules on Worker Classification
    • FEDERAL LEGISLATION—Bicameral legislation would restrict surveillance of employees
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—VA proposes eliminating disparate-impact liability regs under Title VI
    • LABOR PULSE—The more things change, the more they remain the same? Two encyclicals, 155 years, same naivete
    • ON THE LABOR FRONT—The House Takes a bite of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act; Does the Senate have the same appetite?
    • PROCEDURE—4th Cir.: South Carolina’s ‘pre-enforcement, facial challenge’ to OSHA rule was brought too late
    • RETALIATION—3d Cir.: Relaxed standard for Title VII retaliation claims applies to ADA, FMLA claims
    • TRADE SECRETS—N.D. Ohio: Preliminary injunction denied in industrial gas turbine airfoils trade secrets dispute
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court Finds Streamers are Employees Under New Jersey Law Despite Independent Contractor Status Under the FLSA, (Jun 25, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Seyfarth Shaw
    Organizations Mentioned:Seyfarth Shaw, LLP

    By Kyle D. Winnick and Andrew Simon of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

    Seyfarth Synopsis:The District of New Jersey held that performers on a streaming platform are employees under New Jersey law despite being independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), underscoring how the so-call ...

    By Kyle D. Winnick and Andrew Simon of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

    Seyfarth Synopsis:The District of New Jersey held that performers on a streaming platform are employees under New Jersey law despite being independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), underscoring how the so-called “ABC” test more narrowly defines independent contractors.

    In a significant decision highlighting the stringent nature of New Jersey’s ABC test—and its impact on the relationship between online platforms and content creators—the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that performers on an adult streaming platform were employees under New Jersey's ABC test, despite qualifying as independent contractors under the FLSA’s “economic realities” test.

    The case involved a class action lawsuit brought by adult performers on a streaming platform against its parent company (the “Platform”) under the FLSA, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiffs alleged that they were improperly classified as independent contractors and, as a result, were denied full pay and benefits. Performers on the Platform livestreamed content and were free to set their own schedules and rates, as well as perform on competitors’ websites. The Platform required performers to sign “Performer Agreements,” which stated that they were independent contractors and imposed certain rules, with violations potentially resulting in suspension or termination of their accounts.

    The FLSA Economic Realities Test:

    Plaintiffs' FLSA claims were analyzed under the six-factor economic realities test, which requires balancing the factors to determine whether the relationship reflects employment or independent contractor status. The court emphasized that no single factor is dispositive and that the analysis must consider the totality of the circumstances.

    Applying this test, the court concluded that the performers “function[ed] as independent contractors rather than statutory employees entitled to FLSA protections.” Although three factors weighed in favor of independence and three in favor of employment, the court gave particular weight to the performers’ control over the timing, pricing, and location of their streams, as well as their ability to stream simultaneously on competing platforms.

    The New Jersey ABC Test:

    The court evaluated the remaining state law claims under New Jersey’s ABC test. This three-part test examines whether: (A) the individual is free from the employer’s control or direction; (B) the individual performs work outside the employer's usual course or place of business; and (C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

    Unlike the multi-factor economic realities test, the ABC test is a conjunctive test requiring the employer to satisfy all three prongs to rebut the presumption of employment. The court emphasized the “rigid” and “unyielding” nature of this standard.

    While the court found that the performers exercised sufficient control over their work so that the Platform could satisfy Prong A, it held that the Platform failed to establish Prong B. Specifically, the court concluded that the performers’ work was not outside the Platform’s usual course or place of business. The court found that “Performers [were] integral to Defendants’ business, rendering operations impossible without them.” Additionally, the court adopted a broad interpretation of “place of business,” holding that the Platform’s business “is not bounded by brick-and-mortar walls” but extends to its proprietary digital infrastructure. As a result, the performers operated within the Platform's place of business.

    Because failure to satisfy even one prong of the ABC test is dispositive, the court held that an employment relationship existed and declined to analyze Prong C.

    Key Takeaways

    This decision highlights the significant differences between the FLSA’s economic realities test and New Jersey’s “rigid” and “unyielding” ABC test. It also demonstrates how the same set of facts can yield different outcomes under these standards, as well as the challenges employers face in meeting their burden under New Jersey law. The ruling may have far-reaching implications for online companies operating in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that utilize an ABC test.

    Kyle D. Winnick

    Andrew Simon

    Seyfarth Shaw LLP

    233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000

    Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448 United States

    Tel.: +1 312 4605000

    E-mail: CBowles@seyfarth.com

    URL: www.seyfarth.com//

    © Mondaq Ltd, 2026 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: Kyle D. Winnick and Andrew Simon (Seyfarth Shaw).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights WageHour Overtime MinimumWage EmployeeStatus CoverageLiability AINews NewJerseyNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use