What explicit laws or statutes in Japan govern minimum age for adult film performers after the 2022 change to legal adulthood?
Executive summary
Japan lowered the legal age of majority from 20 to 18 effective April 1, 2022, which made 18- and 19-year-olds full legal adults under the civil code [1] [2]. In direct response to anxiety that this change would expose late‑teens to exploitation in the adult video (AV) industry, the Diet passed the Law to Prevent and Assist AV Performance Victims (often called the “new AV law”) in June 2022, which imposes procedural safeguards but, in the sources available, does not create a separate statutory “minimum performer age” distinct from the general age of majority [3] [4] [5].
1. How the age-of‑majority change altered the legal baseline
The April 2022 amendment to the civil code reduced the age of adulthood from 20 to 18, thereby shifting who can independently enter binding contracts such as employment or performance agreements without parental consent [1] [2]. That shift is the crucial legal baseline in reporting about AV performers because previous protections for 18- and 19-year-olds—rooted in their minority status—were no longer automatically available once they became adults under general civil law [1] [6].
2. The “new AV law”: procedural safeguards enacted after the change
Responding to lawmakers’ and campaigners’ alarm, the Diet passed legislation in June 2022 explicitly designed to curb coercion in AV production; reporting describes this as the Law to Prevent and Assist AV Performance Victims (the AV新法) [4] [5]. The law requires companies to provide performers with contract copies and explanations, bans production until one month after contract signing, delays release until four months after filming wraps, and allows performers to rescind contracts within one year of public release with a right to deletion and recall of the material—all provisions reported as applying regardless of a performer’s age or gender [5] [4] [7].
3. What the statutes say — and what they don’t say — about minimum age
Available reporting frames the legal change as removing the old minority-based shield rather than introducing a new minimum‑age cap: the civil code’s reduction to 18 establishes who is a legal adult, and the AV新法 creates protective procedures applicable “regardless of age and gender,” but none of the cited sources assert the existence of a distinct statutory minimum age for AV performers separate from the age of majority [2] [7] [5]. In other words, the public record provided links permissibility to adult status (18+ after April 2022) while inserting regulatory safeguards; the sources do not identify a separate criminal‑law or administrative rule that sets a performer minimum older than 18 [1] [3] [4].
4. Conflicting perspectives, industry responses and hidden agendas
Human‑rights groups, former performers and some lawmakers argued for preserving special protections for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds prior to the age change, collecting petitions and lobbying for exemptions, illustrating a protective agenda [1] [6]. The AV industry and many working performers countered that the new law’s procedural constraints have damaged livelihoods and production, creating an economic grievance and organized protests by hundreds of AV workers [5] [8]. Lawmakers who advanced the AV新法 framed it as bipartisan victim protection in the wake of the civil‑code change, an agenda that foregrounds consent and remedy rather than an outright ban on 18‑year‑olds performing [3] [4].
5. Where reporting leaves open questions and what would be needed to close them
The material reviewed documents the age‑of‑majority change and the AV新法’s contractual safeguards, but it does not cite any statute that explicitly sets a higher minimum age for AV performers than the civil‑code adulthood threshold; therefore, there is no confirmation in these sources of a separate performer‑age statute beyond the 18‑year threshold and the AV law’s protections [1] [5] [4]. To definitively state whether criminal code provisions, administrative regulations under the Entertainment Businesses Control Law (風営法), or municipal ordinances establish different minimums, primary legal texts or government regulatory guidance would need to be consulted; that step is beyond the scope of the current reporting set.