Um.... plea bargains do not "set precedent" in the way that fully adjudicated cases do.
If the government charges me with distributing obscene materials, and then I plead out to a lesser charge (or even to the original charge) this would have a negligible effect on the adult industry at large, for the simple reason that no trier of fact (i.e. jury or judge) has rendered a ruling.... which rather mitigates the value of the case in terms of "precedent."
Before we fly off the handle and say "this lawyer is giving bad advice," or "this lawyer is settling cases and that hurts the industry," it might be good to consider how criminal and civil procedure work, and then reconsider whether such plea bargains are really a "serious adult industry legal concern."
Why don't plea bargains set precedent? Well, how fair would it be for the court to issue a ruling in a case that is going to trial based on a case that did not go to trial? The facts of the case that was plead out could be identical to those in a subsequent case, but a plea bargain by its very nature means that the
legal arguments available to that particular defense attorney were not tested before that court.
As a judge presiding over a subsequent trial with similar facts, you can't very well turn to the defense and say "well, this here attorney two years ago plead out a similar case in which constitutional challenges were available to him, so now I'm rejecting your First Amendment argument without comment or analysis."
It just doesn't work that way.... period.