Nobody forced them to sign anything. If you want to prove duress, rushing them to sign something or manipulating your statements most certainly do not meet the threshold. They signed a legal contract. They need to deal with it. Proving duress would imply that there was some threat of some kind that they had no choice other than to sign the contract.

Justice served.

Those predatory ****ers were honey dicking young girls with other females and telling them lies. They deserve to be in prison.

The fact that a company can approach an 18 year old without representation and allow them to sign a contract is mind blowing and extremely scummy.

Another sloots gon sloot story, what's new

If you make someone read and sign legal documents minutes before they're about to bury themselves in dick when you've had all opportunities in the world to do it beforehand, and when said documents contain terms contrary to everything the company said in documented promises, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate in a court of law that GDP was interested in the actresses knowing and consenting to the actual terms. That goes along with half the plaintiffs reporting being fed alcohol and weed to "loosen their nerves" prior to signing the contract, the owners deliberately lying about what's written on the contracts (e.g. claiming it was just age verification or double-checking consent over what was previously agreed upon).

On the basis that GDP misrepresented themselves throughout the way before the actresses, it's enough to discharge a contract. In other words, they lied about what the contract was going to be like and what was actually written on it. There's also the matter of being placed in a position where consent was questionable at best, and it was engineered to be that way by GDP. Oh, and as if those weren't enough, if you go through the court transcript GDP also did switcheroos with their cash offers and essentially scammed actresses out of their promised pay. But the missing pay is probably the mildest accusation against GDP.


And do note the feds have filed sex trafficking charges against the GDP owners, with Garcia being specifically accused of raping actresses outside of the set. This lawsuit's decision is tangential to these criminal charges, but even if you're too dense to see that GDP deliberately misled, lied to and skimmed their actresses, someone hiding behind fronts who recruits, ****s and disposes young women, then flees once the po-po comes knocking, doesn't exactly care about mutually beneficial agreements.

They also claim to have been plied with alcohol and drugs before being given the contract. You know sloots can't consent with 1 drop of alcohol in their system.

I didn't read the article, but if they were drugging/alcoholing them that is a major issue. But pressuring them because something is time sensitive is nothing.

Edit: post above ^^^. I guess it depends on the threshold buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut we know how that works

so they are whores but also dishonest, scumbags/scam artists

big surprise

i dont really sympathize with either side but when they ask for money.. its just a bs move

I hope that’s collectively to everyone. I don’t believe any of those chicks deserve to get rich.

not reading a written contract before signing is not a defense lmao

“The actresses...”

When the other party consistently lies about the written contract's contents and puts you in a situation where you're unlikely to read them to the fullest, it's called misrepresentation and in fact a defense. It's a basic contract law concept.

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploa...t-a-glance.pdf

VITIATION
11. There are situations where the parties have reached agreement but the
question arises whether the existence or non-existence of some fact, or the
occurrence or non-occurrence of some event, has destroyed the basis on
which that agreement was reached so that the agreement is discharged or in
some other way vitiated.

15 Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 E. & B. 678.
(i) Misrepresentation
12. A misrepresentation is a false statement16 of fact made by one party to
another, which, whilst not a term of the contract, induces the other party to
enter into the contract.An actionable misrepresentation must be a false
statement of fact, not of opinion or future intention or law. Silence does not
normally amount to misrepresentation. However, the representor must not
misleadingly tell only part of the truth. Thus, a statement that does not
present the whole truth may be a misrepresentation. Where a statement was
true when it was made but due to a change of circumstances becomes false,
there is a duty to disclose the change.17
13. A misrepresentation may be:
(i) Fraudulent- made knowingly, without belief in its truth or recklessly;
(ii) Negligent- made by a person who had no reasonable grounds to
believe that it was true; or
(iii) Innocent- made in the wholly innocent belief that it was true.
14. The misrepresentation must have induced, at least partly, the party to enter
into the contract and must have been relied on to at least some degree by the
person to whom it was made. If that person in fact relies on his own
judgments or investigations, or simply ignores the misprepresentation, then it
cannot give rise to an action against the person who made the
misrepresentation.
15. There are multiple remedies available once misrepresentation has been
proved:
(i) Rescission- This sets aside the contract and primarily aims to put the
parties back in their original position as if the contract had never been
made. Rescission can be sought for all cases of misrepresentation.
However, this is a discretionary remedy – meaning that the courts will
not always allow a party to rescind - and the injured party may lose
the right to rescind if: a) he has already affirmed the contract; b) he
does not act to rescind in a reasonable time; c) it is or becomes
impossible to return the parties back to their original position; or d) a
third party has acquired legal rights as a result of the original contract.
(ii) Indemnity- The court may order payment for expenses necessarily
incurred in complying with the terms of the contract.
(iii) Damages- This remedy varies according to the type of
misrepresentation. In fraudulent misrepresentation cases there is an
automatic right to damages, in negligent cases the injured party may
claim damages under common law or under the Misrepresentation Act
1967 s2(1). In situations of innocent misrepresentation, the court has
discretion whether to award damages and may opt to award damages
in lieu of rescission. Damages are discussed further below.



Fortunately for you guys, because contract law isn't just about what's literally written in a piece of paper, your bosses can't just sneak into a clause in a lengthy employment contract that they can repeatedly cum in your face as they please then defend themselves by saying you signed the dotted line.

Everything i read said the girls were told it was porn right away. It was just the intial screening on craigslist where they said they were looking for "models" - whom then contacted them - and then gdp told them it was porn.

But im not buying these girls flew out to these locations for some haphazard chit; im not buying the "they signed the contracts 8 minutes before being filmed"

So i suppose that side of the story would look like this:

-sloot answers craigslist ad
-usually told its porn
-this is where the lady they bought comes in and tells them everything is ok
-theyre told fuzzy info about distribution

SLOOTS STILL FLY OUT DESPITE THIS
-are fed drugs and alcohol
-8 minutes pre filming are coerced to sign contract

And yet.. We're also supposed to believe none of this would come across on video; these girls did not just fly across the country completely duped into porn from what they thought was not porn and then are forced to sign a contract and are drunk and or high 8 minutes before filming and they are not upset in any way whatsoever..sounds like the set up to a totally good porn..and the guys are genuises for a sustainable business model..

Its just ridiculous. I dont see any bish flying across the country for some haphazard thing

I mean honestly id buy that happening, but the lifespan on such endeavors would be really short. In this day of social media and what not. i cant imagine a business like that would last long.. AT ALL

Speed read the 187 page judgment. Amounts awarded are $150k punitive damagss + $46k financial compensation (fair market value of each video) + ($250k - $500k each in emotional damages).

Seems emotional damage was just based on the girls sob story and how much they claim they suffered as a result of the videos being released. So bigger sob story, judge awards more money.

Couple of the girls testified that their boyfriends left them, or it has strained their relationship. Presumably that gets them more money, since they cheated on their bfs, but their bf would not have found out if not for gdp publishing the videos.

One girl testified her bf came back with a gun and said he was going to kill himself, and it would be her fault. Feels bad man.

This is like a man who loses 50k dollars to the casino suing the casino for emotional damage. No one forced them to do it. They could have backed out at any time. They are the ones who made the decision. The are the ones who cheated on their bf, who went with their engagement ring to get fuked.

Jane doe 20 (received email that detailed an offer to shoot 30minutes of sex, so definitely knew the nature of the work before she got there)

"She lost many friends some her sent hurtful messages. For example, her now ex-boyfriend sent emails in which he claimed the pornographic film defined Jane 20. He focused on his own shame and disgust, emphasizing that she made "the most disgusting thing possible"".

Ex-bf found out his girl did a MMF vid for gdp. The tone seems to suggest the bf shouldnt just focus on his feelings but hers.

Judge awarded her $400k in emotional damages.

So basically they got mad that they got exposed for cheating on their bfs.

lmao those poor cucks

so they sue because they thought/were told the videos wouldn't come out, but they didn't have a problem with getting railed by some random guy, the problem was they got exposed?

how can you win emotional damages for this in court, srsly?

http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-con...rn-VERDICT.pdf

The 187page verdict if you are interested, which details each of the 22 womens circumstances.

I think only 1 of the 22 claim she didnt know it was porn until she got there. All the rest knew before they boarded the flight.

To be fair it does seem like they were mislead, but tha doesnt change the fact they would have been perfectly happy cheating on their bf as long as no one would find out.

And yup the damages is pretty much for the releasing of the video, which they claim they were told would only be on dvd in australia.

The judge even makes a comment that it doesnt matter that theoretically they could have suffered the same concequence if it was true it was only releaaes on dvd, but the person that bought the dvd uploaded it to the internet. His reasoning was that it waa irrelevant because they didnt just release it dvd, so he doesnt need to consider a theoretical situation.

No, that's not right. GDP makes highly specific claims about distribution and privacy, namely that:

-The videos would only be distributed in DVD outside of the USA (they made various lies when some actresses pressed - claiming the DVD's couldn't be copied, that they would take the videos down, that the fictitious DVD buyers would sign a non-disclosure agreement, etc.)
-The videos would never, and have never been published online (even when they were hundreds of videos in)
-No personal information would be distributed in or after the video shoot (in fact part of the appeal of GDP was the PI being reveled in the videos)
-Authentic testimonials would confirm the legitimacy of GDP's claims (they were in fact fraudulent)

You can find that between pages 8-23 of the ruling.

Yet again, GDP consistently and deliberately lying about how the videos were to be distributed then engineering the signing situation so that the contracts contradicted what was previously agreed upon and the actresses would have little time or capacity to review the terms, are core to why GDP lost the lawsuit. Just because the misrepresentation led to the world seeing your vagina being pounded on camera, rather than more familiar cases of contractual misrepresentation such as being injured in an unsafe workplace or having a dud car, doesn't mean you signed away your rights to be ruled by contract law.

And I mean, the actresses being any combination of unsure, sloppy and uncomfortable was one of the appeals of GDP videos to begin with.

Women are the fuking scourge

If I was the judge I'd have ordered every video to be shown to their employees and family. Just lol @ this whole farce of a case.

ftfy

lmao just lmao

Plus the GDP guy made another website where he basically outed all the girls and posted their personal information.

You all realize 2 things can be true at the same time right?

It's true that these sloots are sloots and are scummy girls who were okay being prostitutes and getting dciked down on camera "as long as no one found out" and cheating on their bf's etc.

It's also true that the porn industry is predatory and also scummy and GDP clearly lied to them about the distribution of these videos.

All you fcukers saying "oh well they signed the contract and that's that" don't know how these predators work. Would you all have the same attitude if this was some people scamming the elderly into giving them money? But they signed the contract right? Just because the girls are scummy and were okay with doing porn doesn't mean they weren't lied to.

From the court documents they understood what they were getting into up until the distribution of the videos and GDP clearly lied to them.

I heard she was pretty crappy at her job.

"She has twice attempted suicide: first, by taking a bottle of pills within a month or two after the video appeared online, and second, in 2018, when she attempted to load her boyfriend's pistol, but it discharged accidentally and lodged a bullet into the floor."

LMAO @ this coming from a middle aged spinster posting foot fetish pics on a bodybuilding forum.

Just fukken LMAO

To those complaining the girls are going to get rich they won't. The owner is on the run in NZ somewhere. Warrants are out for his arrest. Once they catch up with him I'm sure the website goes down. I'm sure he hid most of the money or spent it. They will get a judgment against him. But if he goes to prison making license plates that doesn't pay well.