The important point is the test the court used to determine if sex was purchased. The requirement to purchase sex remains in current law.
The court found that because the cost of a massage was $___ and that money was paid and the massage was given, that anything that happened after the massage was the act of consenting adults, not pay for play. But if a discussion happens regarding the cost for sexual services, you’re screwed.
What I think can be gleaned from this is that if an actual massage occurs and at the end leads to sexual activity, and a price for the sexual activity was never discussed, then it’s the act of consenting adults who already concluded their business relationship and not prostitution.