This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/girls-do-porn-lawsuit-award.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judge Awards Nearly $13 Million to Women Who Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers Judge Awards Nearly $13 Million to Women Who Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers
(about 1 hour later)
A Superior Court judge in San Diego tentatively awarded nearly $13 million to nearly two dozen young women on Thursday, ruling that they had been tricked into performing in pornographic videos that derailed and uprooted their lives and led several to become suicidal. A Superior Court judge in San Diego tentatively awarded nearly $13 million to almost two dozen young women on Thursday, ruling that they had been tricked into performing in pornographic videos that derailed and uprooted their lives and led several to become suicidal.
The ruling capped an unusual 99-day civil trial that exposed the bait-and-switch tactics and false promises deployed as part of a scheme to induce young women, who would not otherwise consider filming pornography, to fly to San Diego and shoot a pornographic video.The ruling capped an unusual 99-day civil trial that exposed the bait-and-switch tactics and false promises deployed as part of a scheme to induce young women, who would not otherwise consider filming pornography, to fly to San Diego and shoot a pornographic video.
The judge, Kevin A. Enright, ordered the defendants to remove the women’s images and videos from the pornographic websites they control or own, and to take steps to remove them from other online sites.The judge, Kevin A. Enright, ordered the defendants to remove the women’s images and videos from the pornographic websites they control or own, and to take steps to remove them from other online sites.
He gave both sides 15 days to object to his decision before it would become final.He gave both sides 15 days to object to his decision before it would become final.
Edward Chapin, a lawyer who represented the 22 plaintiffs in the suit, said Thursday that the ruling was an important victory for the young women who had suffered personally and professionally. Each woman would receive an amount ranging from about $300,000 to $550,000.Edward Chapin, a lawyer who represented the 22 plaintiffs in the suit, said Thursday that the ruling was an important victory for the young women who had suffered personally and professionally. Each woman would receive an amount ranging from about $300,000 to $550,000.
“They are happy with the outcome because it shows they were believed, that their story was believed,” Mr. Chapin said. “They had been shamed. These guys attacked them, harassed them and intimidated them so it was challenging to get them to testify. So it’s a vindication for them.”“They are happy with the outcome because it shows they were believed, that their story was believed,” Mr. Chapin said. “They had been shamed. These guys attacked them, harassed them and intimidated them so it was challenging to get them to testify. So it’s a vindication for them.”
The case named three defendants: Michael J. Pratt, the chief executive of GirlsDoPorn.com; Andre Garcia, an actor; and Matthew Wolfe, a videographer, as well as the business entities they operated.The case named three defendants: Michael J. Pratt, the chief executive of GirlsDoPorn.com; Andre Garcia, an actor; and Matthew Wolfe, a videographer, as well as the business entities they operated.
Daniel Kaplan and Aaron Sadock, two lawyers for the defendants, said Thursday that their clients were weighing their options and would most likely file objections to the court’s tentative decision, and if the decision became final, formally appeal.Daniel Kaplan and Aaron Sadock, two lawyers for the defendants, said Thursday that their clients were weighing their options and would most likely file objections to the court’s tentative decision, and if the decision became final, formally appeal.
Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Sadock said their clients were also focused on defending themselves against criminal charges filed last fall in federal court in San Diego that mirrored the allegations leveled against them in the civil case.Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Sadock said their clients were also focused on defending themselves against criminal charges filed last fall in federal court in San Diego that mirrored the allegations leveled against them in the civil case.
In October, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Garcia were each charged with three counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion, and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion.In October, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Garcia were each charged with three counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion, and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion.
Another associate, Valorie Moser, who the authorities said helped recruit the women, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion.Another associate, Valorie Moser, who the authorities said helped recruit the women, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion.
Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Garcia and Ms. Moser pleaded not guilty in the criminal case.Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Garcia and Ms. Moser pleaded not guilty in the criminal case.
The authorities said in October that Mr. Pratt, who is originally from New Zealand, had left the country and was considered a fugitive. During the civil trial in San Diego, only one defendant, Mr. Wolfe, appeared in court, and “provided guarded, and at times inconsistent testimony,” Judge Enright wrote.The authorities said in October that Mr. Pratt, who is originally from New Zealand, had left the country and was considered a fugitive. During the civil trial in San Diego, only one defendant, Mr. Wolfe, appeared in court, and “provided guarded, and at times inconsistent testimony,” Judge Enright wrote.
“The tentative ruling does not affect the criminal case,” Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Sadock said in a joint statement. “The government’s burden of proof in the criminal case is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ which is much higher standard than in this civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence.”“The tentative ruling does not affect the criminal case,” Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Sadock said in a joint statement. “The government’s burden of proof in the criminal case is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ which is much higher standard than in this civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence.”
Judge Enright found that the women had been lured with Craiglist ads that offered to pay them around $5,000 for photos or video shoots. The ads did not indicate that any nudity or pornography would be involved.Judge Enright found that the women had been lured with Craiglist ads that offered to pay them around $5,000 for photos or video shoots. The ads did not indicate that any nudity or pornography would be involved.
“Wanted,” one ad read, “beautiful college type preppy girls,” for video and photo shoots.“Wanted,” one ad read, “beautiful college type preppy girls,” for video and photo shoots.
The women who responded to the ads said they were directed to innocuous websites, with pictures of clothed women, that asked for their contact information and photographs.The women who responded to the ads said they were directed to innocuous websites, with pictures of clothed women, that asked for their contact information and photographs.
The ads turned out to be from the producers of GirlsDoPorn, who were seeking women to make so-called amateur pornography, which often features fresh-faced actresses paired with seasoned male performers.The ads turned out to be from the producers of GirlsDoPorn, who were seeking women to make so-called amateur pornography, which often features fresh-faced actresses paired with seasoned male performers.
Once a newly recruited woman had flown to San Diego, she found herself alone in a hotel room with two men about to shoot a pornographic video, Judge Enright wrote.Once a newly recruited woman had flown to San Diego, she found herself alone in a hotel room with two men about to shoot a pornographic video, Judge Enright wrote.
At this point, the producers had the women sign documents containing “dense and ambiguous legalese,” which they falsely described as guarantees that their videos would be distributed only on DVD outside of the United States and would never be published online, Judge Enright wrote.At this point, the producers had the women sign documents containing “dense and ambiguous legalese,” which they falsely described as guarantees that their videos would be distributed only on DVD outside of the United States and would never be published online, Judge Enright wrote.
“Defendants rush and pressure the woman to sign the documents quickly without reading them and engage in other deceptive, coercive and threatening behavior to secure their signatures,” Judge Enright wrote, describing the scheme.“Defendants rush and pressure the woman to sign the documents quickly without reading them and engage in other deceptive, coercive and threatening behavior to secure their signatures,” Judge Enright wrote, describing the scheme.
The court found that, contrary to the producers’ promises, the women’s videos were published on GirlsDoPorn, a paid subscription website, and many popular free sites such as Pornhub.com.The court found that, contrary to the producers’ promises, the women’s videos were published on GirlsDoPorn, a paid subscription website, and many popular free sites such as Pornhub.com.
“In this case, we’re not saying they had a gun to their head, but they were lied to, sold a bill of goods,” said Brian Holm, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “The crux of it is fraud.”“In this case, we’re not saying they had a gun to their head, but they were lied to, sold a bill of goods,” said Brian Holm, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “The crux of it is fraud.”
The defendants lawyers had said the women had signed contracts that stated the videos they appeared in could be “used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose.”The defendants lawyers had said the women had signed contracts that stated the videos they appeared in could be “used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose.”
The distribution of the videos caused the women to experience severe harassment, emotional and psychological trauma, reputational harm, and to lose jobs and academic and professional opportunities, Judge Enright wrote. The videos also derailed and uprooted the women’s lives, he wrote.The distribution of the videos caused the women to experience severe harassment, emotional and psychological trauma, reputational harm, and to lose jobs and academic and professional opportunities, Judge Enright wrote. The videos also derailed and uprooted the women’s lives, he wrote.
“They have become pariahs in their communities,” Judge Enright wrote, adding that several “have become suicidal.”“They have become pariahs in their communities,” Judge Enright wrote, adding that several “have become suicidal.”
He found that the women’s injuries were “directly attributable to the defendants’ fraudulent scheme” and awarded the women a total of about $9.5 million in compensatory damages and $3.3 million in punitive damages.He found that the women’s injuries were “directly attributable to the defendants’ fraudulent scheme” and awarded the women a total of about $9.5 million in compensatory damages and $3.3 million in punitive damages.
Judge Enright also found evidence that the defendants harassed some of the women who filed the lawsuit.Judge Enright also found evidence that the defendants harassed some of the women who filed the lawsuit.
Shortly after one of the women, identified only as Jane Doe 1, hired a lawyer in an effort to obtain a copy of the documents she had signed and to get her videos removed from the web, the pornographic video she had shot was sent to dozens of students, professors and administrators at her law school, the judge wrote.Shortly after one of the women, identified only as Jane Doe 1, hired a lawyer in an effort to obtain a copy of the documents she had signed and to get her videos removed from the web, the pornographic video she had shot was sent to dozens of students, professors and administrators at her law school, the judge wrote.
The defendants denied sending the video, but Judge Enright found it “more likely than not that they were behind the harassment.”The defendants denied sending the video, but Judge Enright found it “more likely than not that they were behind the harassment.”