GDP done fukt up

It's not hard to believe if you read what the lawsuit was actually about. That being said - even if it was supposedly for overseas distribution, PornHub is global, it still would have made their lives Stateside a wreck.

Classic case of play stupid games on the girl's side...but there is zero doubt they were lied to, manipulated, etc. Nothing wrong with the settlement and from all the rest of the sht that was going on, they deserve plenty of jail time too.

I still don't understand why GDP would even put themselves in this position though either. There's plenty of girls that are fine with being on film and having it posted wherever. There isn't a shortage of applicants...you don't have to lie to get more to sign up lol.

So let me get this straight because I'm genuinely interested in this case and verdict.

They were seeking out young women, not morons. So who exactly determined "that they knew they were seeking out morons who could be easily misled"? That seems to be very important because as you went on to say "it [the moronic status of the victims] established their [GDP's] intent."

So really two simple questions for you who seem to be knowledgeable in law:

1. Who determined that the young women GDP were seeking out were morons/less alert and more naive members of society?

2. Could intent have been proven/a guilty verdict passed with ease if all the women/victims weren't declared to be morons/less alert and more naive members of society?

These guys are scumbags, srs. You can't get away with these type of techniques selling cars or insurance but because it's dumb sloots the misc is ok with it

I would imagine it had more to do with their age. 17-18 year olds who don't know chit about contracts or anything.

Then again with that argument the military recruiters are in the same boat. Brb suing DOD for 22 million dollars for lying and tricking me.

America of peace.

You try to pull off that crap here in Mexico as a woman, and you are forced to suck the judge's cock just for wasting his time srs.

There were 22 women involved of which only one was 17 when the Mexican horsecock contacted her and she signed the contract the day or the day after she turned 18. I can see the law showing her some pity by classifying her as a bonafide retard. But the rest of the "victims" were practically all in their 20s. No excuses there.

This. No idea why they would lie

Let us reverse the genders. Say adult company had done something like this. They put ads on craiglist asking for male models to fly out to a shoot. They then tell them they will be shooting an adult movie and have a female performer on hand for them to have sex with. The men sign a contract and state they were consenting to having sex on camera. The men are told that the video will only be sold in Australia and their names will not be placed on the website.

You guys think that in such a scenario this would have made it to court if several men stepped forward to sue them?

Just my suspicion...but I feel like if there's any degree of shame or morals involved in a particular case, the plaintiffs are going to be given benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure how much "misrepresentation" actually saves you if you're signing on the dotted line. For example...I doubt you'd have any recourse in a similar situation when buying a vehicle. People get tricked and gouged on the daily when buying cars and being ignorant or uneducated or mislead isn't a defense.

The Mexican stunt cock was also raping them. So he's going away for a long time. Should have fled the country like his buddy. Now he's gonna be War Machine's new boyfriend.

You don't think if a used car salesman plied you with drugs and alcohol then quadrupled the price of the vehicle in the sales contract that you wouldn't have any recourse? Are you really that stupid?

Whoa chill didn't hear about that. Every single girl was inebriated when they signed up?

From what I've read two women accused him of rape/sexual assault. I didn't read anywhere that the rape/sexual assault happened off set and was not connected with the actual scene.

It would be easy for a lawyer to argue that since his sloot client was a bonafide double-digit IQ moron who was manipulated into signing the contract, the contract was null and void and therefore the sex during the scene was actually rape because no consent was given.

Do you have a link to an article which gives more info about the rape accusations?

Did you read the article? It wasn't one or two shady things they were pulling. They had their system down pat. Start with bikini modeling job, bait switch to sucking dinks, bring in paid assistants to tell them how great it is, get them high/drunk bring out contract with salary cut in half from verbal negotiations, dont let them leave the room til signed. The Mexican was also demanding a "test ride" before the filming.

You can only "ply" minors with drugs and alcohol. As an adult I don't have to take any drugs or alcohol offered me. From what I've read the women were informed about the lower price before even boarding their plane to fly to the location. They weren't informed about it while signing the contract. Once again, if you have a link with more info, then share it.

In my post from page one (https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...post1594768281) I give excerpts from an article that wrote about the "bait and switch" tactic in detail and like I said that one particular sloot was informed about the lower price before she ever got on the plane. And she still accepted it because she's a lazy whore.

Edit:The article in the OP is very vague and gives no details. Read this article:https://www.xbiz.com/news/247515/her...rlsdoporn-case

So the judge and the FBI are wrong and you're right mr. contract law expert. Maybe you should have been their lawyer!!

This. GDP guys are shady as **** and should get in legal trouble

Sounds par for the course for pornographers tbh. They understand female psychology and that a woman isn't likely to take up an ad for "get dicked on camera" but they can be escalated from "photo shoots".

If they're drugged or heavily deceived that's one thing, but if they're sober they have to have some level of responsibility for their choices surely. The whole thing about only distributing to Oceania sounds like a major goof on the owners part.

Geezus!GDP negotiated to remove a video for $15k once a girl found out it was online. Holy **** these guys are low.And the miscers were out in full force

Dont you think that would come across on camera though? A lot of intricacies and nuances to the suggestions. Unsure how to differentiate real from made up

But can you imagine you and i making a porn company. Flying them out there under vague pre-tenses.

Then forcing drugs/ alcohol --> then forcing a contract which is less than they originally agreed to 8 minutes before filming --> also supposedly locking them in the room and "forcing" them to sign a contract

And then expecting not to see any deleterious affects of their performance on video? Do you think it would be easy to film them after that? Then some returned lol

If i did that to 1 girl i would expect her to go to authorities/ social media/ whatever right away. I dont think that would last long at all

Theres a lot of details to get lost on this though

JFL so they invest $5k+ in the scene (hotel, plane ticket, makeup artist, cameraman, prostitute fee) and then later simply because the sloot doesn't want betabuxx Timmy to find out that she's actually a massive cumeating whore, they should just remove the video for free?

JFL yeah that's really low.

Let me clarify something:

The intellect of the plaintiffs was discussed in the context of a third element, "reliance". In order to have standing to claim that you've been defrauded, you need to be able to show that you relied on the false promises and were reasonable in doing so. The judge touched on this because the law looks to the particulars of the plaintiff to determine whether or not they were justified in relying on the promise in question.

In other words, the standard for a stockbroker who has passed multiple SEC exams claiming he was defrauded by a financial product and the standard for a farmer who dropped out of high school claiming he was defrauded by a financial product are significantly different.

The judge observed that the plaintiffs, overall, were uneducated and knew nothing about the porn industry. The judge also observed that the law is clear that the plaintiff's negligence in relying on a fraudulent promise is nullified when the misrepresentation was intentional and malicious - which was proven at length - and that GDP intentionally sought out women with those characteristics, rather than people who are familiar with the industry and would immediately realize they were being put on. The law is not written to help a con-artist pull one over on a particularly gullible victim.

The court isn't so much "finding the plaintiffs stupid", but did point out that they're obviously naive and even if they are stupid, it doesn't help the defense.Crooked car dealers get sued for misleading customers all the time. The problem isn't that it's not illegal, it's that it's not easy for most plaintiffs to prove that the defendant knew it and did it on purpose. The scope of that kind of investigation is very expensive and time-consuming, so unless, as here, you've got a bunch of plaintiffs who might be able to recoup millions, it's usually not worth it. That's why in most states it ends up being the AG's job to go after shady businesses.

In this case, the attorneys did an assload of work, and at least in California, it happens to be that if a defendant deliberately tries to prevent the plaintiff from reading the contract and lies to them about what's in it, they're on the hook for what they said was in it. It was shown at trial that they had a pattern of claiming they were behind schedule and pressuring the girls to just sign and get started. (This, as opposed to the more common situation where a plaintiff could have read it at their leisure and was given an opportunity to do so, but just didn't.)

Everything about the way they did business was dumber than chit and setting themselves up for this day.

I think its quite ridiculous that they're getting paid this amount of money and it seems 'unfair' regardless if they were supposedly 'pressured'. Did they have a gun held to their head forcing them to sign the contract? No, they wield coercion around like a weapon. What happened to reading your contracts properly or even going through them with a lawyer before you sign it?

Keep this in mind though even with all the "herp derp sloots make dumb choices and make millions", if they are stupid enough to sign themselves into a contract where they spread their legs for the entire internet to see... Then they'll definitely be stupid enough to burn all the money away and end up miserable.

They have clearly demonstrated their impulsiveness and lack of financial literacy in the past, because what else would explain getting yourself in a situation where your money runs dry and your only option left is to spread your legs whilst you are living in a meritocratic first world country. I'm confident in saying that they'll lose all the money and most likely experiment with highly addictive substances if they haven't already within the next few months to a year and end up in an infinitely worse position than they are in now.

In other words, nothing to see here brahs. Work on your 2020 goals, acquire money, acquire aesthetics, acquire status and disregard sloots who sloot

i have 0 sympathy for any parties involved. the bigger issue is that there is no right and wrong anymore. when i see things like this i have to ask myself, "do i really want to have a family in a world like this?"

I always wondered how did the GDP guys get these one off girls???? 99% of the girls they filmed never did another scene which is insane. And they never had one old ugly ex stripper type bitch, it was all young college girl next door types.

Lmao. What happened to reading the story before you give your dip**** opinion on it?

lmao if you expected any less. Gotta make those movies for a year or 2 and disappear, especially in this day an age. Did the owner think GDP would last forever using shady tactics? lol

A business deal is a deal. You break the terms, you feel the long arm of the law up your pretty butt. Don't like it? Learn how to honor a business deal.