[BUSINESS] Judge awards $12.7 million to the 22 women suing GirlsDoPorn

Discussion Of All Legal Topics Is Fine Anything Goes. Be Respectful of Others. No Personal Information or Attacks.
All Traffic, Link, Banner, Push Notification and Advertising, Offers & Requests Here,.
Domains & Websites For Sale and Requests Here.
Keep One thread per person & No More Than 1 Weekly Bump.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheButcher
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 17530
Joined: February 2nd, 2018, 11:48 am
Title: I like weekends
Referrals: 1
Contact:

[BUSINESS] Judge awards $12.7 million to the 22 women suing GirlsDoPorn

#1

Post by TheButcher » January 3rd, 2020, 10:38 am

The civil case against GirlsDoPorn is over, I am sure there will be an appeal, but the criminal case is the real problem for those accused.


"(CNN)A San Diego judge has awarded $12.7 million to 22 women who claimed they were deceived and coerced into filming pornography they did not know would be posted online.
Tuesday's decision stems from a lawsuit filed by the unnamed women against pornography website GirlsDoPorn and concluded a trial that began in August. San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright awarded the women $9,475,831.50 in compensatory damages and $3.3 million in punitive damages.
"We are weighing our client's options, which include filing objections to the court's tentative statement of decision and an appeal if the decision becomes final," defense attorney Aaron D. Sadock said in a statement to CNN. Sadock added that the defendants will likely file objections in the next 15 days.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants deceived women in financial need.

Court documents say the defendants, including the website's owners Michael James Pratt and Matthew Isaac Wolfe and porn actor Ruben Andre Garcia, used fraudulent practices to recruit "amateur college-aged women filming pornography for the first and only time" for their subscription-based service.
The defendants were aware that the models recruited for the website did not intend to pursue a career in adult entertainment, court documents said.
Instead, the women were mostly students who considered the defendants' solicitations to film a pornographic video only due to some immediate and pressing financial need, according to court documents. The lawsuit claims the defendants took "considerable, calculated steps to falsely assure prospective models that their videos will never be posted online, come to light in the United States, or be seen by anyone who might know them."
The women were rushed into signing documents without reading them, and the defendants paid "references" hired to pose as previous models and deliver a script that would falsely convince the women that the experience was "safe and enjoyable" and that the videos had never been discovered nor circulated.
Despite these promises, the lawsuit says the defendants published the videos to their website and many popular free services.

The owners of the website and two employees have also been charged in federal court with sex trafficking crimes in connection with the scheme, according to the Department of Justice.
"At this point our clients are focused on defending themselves against the criminal charges in Federal Court in San Diego. The tentative ruling does not affect the criminal case," Sadock said."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/us/fraud ... index.html

CDSally
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 452
Joined: September 10th, 2019, 2:04 am

#2

Post by CDSally » January 3rd, 2020, 2:20 pm

If it's all true ten they got what they were due.




User avatar
bill
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8259
Joined: February 3rd, 2018, 3:36 pm

#3

Post by bill » January 3rd, 2020, 2:37 pm

if that is all true then they should have received more

Boner
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: July 8th, 2018, 12:21 pm

#4

Post by Boner » January 3rd, 2020, 3:15 pm

How do these monetary amounts get set, is it what the plaitiffs ask for and the judge decides, or what.




chilli.domains
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 864
Joined: March 16th, 2018, 2:18 pm

#5

Post by chilli.domains » January 4th, 2020, 9:51 am

You do wrong you deserve to get nailed , this story was never good to begin with.




User avatar
bestfreeporn
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2308
Joined: February 20th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Referrals: 1

#6

Post by bestfreeporn » January 5th, 2020, 5:27 pm

Not kosher because it reflects badly on the adult industry, it means women were wronged. I think the judge got it right based on the evidence and arguments presented by the plaintiffs.




User avatar
nudelinks
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1232
Joined: February 26th, 2018, 8:12 pm

#7

Post by nudelinks » January 7th, 2020, 7:32 am

Not enough , they have to be fined way more.




chilli.domains
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 864
Joined: March 16th, 2018, 2:18 pm

#8

Post by chilli.domains » January 8th, 2020, 9:06 pm

nudelinks wrote: ↑
January 7th, 2020, 7:32 am
Not enough , they have to be fined way more.


It usually gets reduced in the appeal.




porntraveller
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 609
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 2:01 am

#9

Post by porntraveller » January 12th, 2020, 1:14 pm

$12.7 Mill divided into 22 , makes $577K each woman, typically attorneys charge about a 1/3rd so say $200K for them, that only leaves each woman with $377K. Not a bad amount of money.




User avatar
fantastico
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 865
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 6:24 pm

#10

Post by fantastico » January 13th, 2020, 10:31 am

porntraveller wrote: ↑
January 12th, 2020, 1:14 pm
$12.7 Mill divided into 22 , makes $577K each woman, typically attorneys charge about a 1/3rd so say $200K for them, that only leaves each woman with $377K. Not a bad amount of money.
and your point being what,

$377,000 is still a lot of money don't ya think?




User avatar
trafficseller
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1142
Joined: March 1st, 2018, 6:44 pm

#11

Post by trafficseller » January 14th, 2020, 7:11 am

when this story broke , my thoughts were it will not go well and there is some truth to the claims made by the women, hard to say why I had that hunch, and now the trial is over I was unfortunately correct.
Always looking to make deals with world wide traffic ping me if inetrested

Ricks-Cams
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1089
Joined: March 13th, 2018, 1:17 pm

#12

Post by Ricks-Cams » January 15th, 2020, 12:55 pm

Right is right and wrong is wrong. No woman has to be tricked into doing porn.
You want to make money work the cams

24alex
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 2nd, 2018, 12:51 pm
Referrals: 21

#13

Post by 24alex » January 17th, 2020, 7:52 am

The domain is offline, just checked. That is a good thing.




Cumslut
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 462
Joined: October 24th, 2018, 5:59 am

#14

Post by Cumslut » January 19th, 2020, 8:43 am

You miss one important part in this, the women were mentally and emotionally harmed, you can not put a dollar amount on that anguish and hurt.




User avatar
GRXlinks
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 671
Joined: April 2nd, 2018, 8:07 am

#15

Post by GRXlinks » January 20th, 2020, 1:20 pm

Cumslut wrote: ↑
January 19th, 2020, 8:43 am
You miss one important part in this, the women were mentally and emotionally harmed, you can not put a dollar amount on that anguish and hurt.
I never believe when people say it is not about the money, you sue to get money.




[BUSINESS] Judge awards $12.7 million to the 22 women suing GirlsDoPorn

Post Reply