$12.7M verdict for GirlsDoPorn civil suit
 

Lying to models isn’t a good thing

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

So the models signed papers agreeing with publishing and then claimed they had lied to them and that they had not read the papers?? Why did they sign something they had not read?

So when I sign an agreement I can then claim I did not read the agreement and be safe?

If you sign an agreement that says one thing but are told another, thats fraud.

These guys had an elaborate scheme with fake models and recruiters that lied to them. It was all documented.

From that article:

"The women were rushed into signing documents without reading them"

Where does the article state that the documents contained false claims?? It states they signed papers without reading them.

This is the civil lawsuit, not the criminal case.

I believe the title says $12.7M verdict for GirlsDoPorn civil suit

Yeah, I mention it in my post. :)

The model release said the videos could be published online. The models were told they wouldn't be published online.

The contracts were legit. What they told them wasn't.

They (the producers) had fake/paid models that claimed their fictitious videos they shot for GDP never were published online. The camera man and secretary also lied and told the girls their videos wouldn't be published online.

^ There's a whole conspiracy there to defraud them.

That's deceptive. It's misrepresentation and contract fraud.

What don't you understand about that?

But why you mad though?

:helpme

I saw it yesterday OMGGG

No money no honey

These guys even doxxed their own models? Jesus Christ

I know what you mean, but then why did they sign that? :upsidedow

This gives more insight

https://www.courthousenews.com/women...rn-fraud-suit/

I find this sentence from the judge insightful:

“Video of these women cheerfully answering questions she believes no one will ever see does not necessarily undermine her fraud claim and in fact, shows how thoroughly she believed defendants.”

Why do you sign all the papers when you go to the doctor without reading them?

:1orglaugh

What makes you think I don't read them??

91% of people consent to legal terms and services conditions without reading them. You're like a unicorn if you read any of that :1orglaugh

Dude, if you don’t see what they did exposed themselves to possible outcome, you are not paying attention.

Those scenes are still flying around on tubes and such ? ?

Sluts crying about being slutty is rich

:1orglaugh of course

but strangely the username of the account is gone:

https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.p...h5dab097b6cbc0

From: Unknown

And the girls names are all gone from the videos. Now they're just numbered.

but not everywhere.

https://www.redtube.com/16178951

such a big fuck up

I don't see how that's fraud to be honest. Everyone should read every contract they sign. A written contract supersedes a verbal contract if it was signed after the verbal agreement was made. If they're told it won't be published online, but then they sign a contract saying it will be published online - that is their fault for not reading the contract. If they signed a contract that said it wouldn't be online and then someone swapped out a page from it or something - then yes, this is fraud.

People should of course be honest in business and come in with good intentions but if the judgement against girlsdoporn was because the models didn't read what they were signing, does this not make the whole concept of a written contract absolutely worthless?

Depends on who is involved. Written B2B contracts are usually always valid. The validity of contracts between a business entity and a consumer really also depend on the circumstances. And the big number of girls that stated all the same plus even employees testifying against gdp make the case here and the contracts were nullified by the judge.

You have to remember there was a scheme/conspiracy involving the producers, make-up artists, videographers, the secretary, fake former models paid to claim their videos were never put online. All these people working together to convince the models their videos wouldn't be posted online and nobody would find out. Which was all a lie. And it was all backed up by testimony and depositions.

In the USA you can't misrepresent a contract.

A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract. If the misrepresentation is discovered, the contract can be declared void and, depending on the situation; the adversely impacted party may seek damages.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m...esentation.asp

This is a textbook case of misrepresentation, hence the judgement.

have you ever bought a car?

you have never dealt with teen models I'm guessing :2 cents:

Hahahahahaha

Some girls were allegedly given alcohol and drugs prior to signing the contracts, which means their decision making ability was impaired. Note that the legal drinking age in California is 21, so any of these girls aged 18, 19 or 20 was illegally served alcohol. On that basis alone, those contracts should have been declared void.

For everyone saying read everything, yes, do, but you know damn well you didn't read that EULA

Abd they will be there forever

Interesting tidbit from the courthouse news story about the "disclosure" the videos might be put on line:

As for the 8-page contracts models signed minutes before shooting videos – often after being plied with alcohol and marijuana – Enright found a reference at the bottom of the second page to “online purposes” was not an appropriate disclosure the videos were made to be posted online.

“Defendants have repeatedly professed otherwise and bury this ‘disclosure’ in a lengthy legalistic document that models are not permitted to read and digest,” Enright wrote. “The import of the section is a restriction on the model’s outside activities, not a representation regarding defendants’ use of the videos.”

What are the changes of any of that money actually getting collected?

Did police ever catch the last guy from the crew?

Spicy, it´s not just the paperwork, the 3 site owners had another girl working and being paid by them to interact with the models and say that the content was not going to be shown online, it was sold abroad and only to be used there. The guys would hurry and sign it, it´s all ok, and with pressure and then cameras all waiting, drink and drugs given out, the team were looking for this and good for the courts.

It´s companies like this that make it harder for us to find models to trust producers :2 cents: