"GirlsDoPorn" being sued for lying to girls.
 

The civil trial against a San Diego-based porn website accused of lying to young women to get them to have sex on camera continues, however, the whereabouts of the owner is now unknown.

On Tuesday, attorneys for the 22 women who are suing the website, Girls Do Porn, its owner Michael Pratt, videographer Matthew Wolfe, and actor and director Ruben “Andre” Garcia, said they were informed that Pratt was no longer in the country, despite being under subpoena to testify.

“We have been informed that [Pratt] is no longer in the jurisdiction and is no longer available to testify, even though he is under court order to here in court,” said lead attorney Ed Chapin.

As reported by NBC 7 Investigates, 22 women filed a lawsuit against the company for allegedly setting up an elaborate scheme to coax them into having sex on camera. The men did so, according to testimony from the women as well as interviews with NBC 7, by using aliases, and false promises that the videos would be sold only to private collectors in foreign countries on DVDs; never to be posted online.

To help convince the women, the men paid so-called “reference models” who, according to testimony, knowingly lied to prospective models to get them to agree to fly to San Diego to shoot the videos.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...560615211.html

:1orglaugh yeah, the DVD market is thriving these days, especially porn :1orglaugh

que Paul ....

I heard that if you say "DVD market" 3 times, he will show up

Mike's on the run?



The funny thing is he was one of my first affiliates back in 2000. He took the premise of my sites and did it for real lol.

It's all onehungs fault, as usual...

The government told me they were going to use my tax money for health care and the feed the hungry then they gave the cash to a bunch of losers in Syria who can I sue?

Did you mean queue? Or are you speaking español?

Hundreds of Women Who Agreed to Model Swimsuits Were Forced to Perform in Porn, Lawsuit Alleges

One company goes rogue and everyone else, legit or not, gets thrown under the bus.

If Michael Pratt is indeed on the run, potential criminal charges after the civil suit may be the reason.

So girls turn up to do swimwear and do hardcore porn instead?

What does the model release say?

I just don't understand why there's even a case here. If I am hired to model swimsuits and then I am asked to do porn, I just say no (unless I'm OK with doing porn), it's that simple. They did it because they wanted the money. So they enjoyed the money and now are upset that people are jerking off to their videos online? Seriously, I would think the court system has better things to do...

Yes that does not have sense, especially even if agreement "sold only to private collectors" was followed, what exactly is preventing collectors to put it online ?

Thankfully the law is slightly more intricate than what you describe.

What does the contract or release say?

If I understand correctly, the defendants are recruiting girls nationally and flying them into San Diego with the pretense to do swimsuit modeling. As most of these girls are young and likely to be naive and have limited resources, they would be more vulnerable to fraud and coercion than someone who is older and has more resources available.

A possible scenario would be the defendants pay for flights into San Diego and say the job is to perform in porn. If the girls don't perform, then they would have to find their own way home. It may be easy for a local girl to refuse the ultimatum in this possible scenario, but difficult for a girl traveling cross country, who would then need a last minute flight costing hundreds of dollars to get home.

the stupidity of these women is amazing....but hey, the war on porn has begun so they probably win :2 cents:

Andrea Dworking lives on !

People standing at the Assembly line at $7.25 an hour is human trafficking and exploitation too.

I once heard of a producer telling women he was shooting them for a college project and they were so suripised to find their images online. Some guys are really bad ass.

Another story on the trial:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...th-new-models/

How much was he paying them I wonder?

Exactly! This is what I think everytime I hear these moralists bitch about porn industry, exploitation and prostitution yet they are OK with this low pay slavery. $7.25 would even be considered a premium pay rate for workers here, fucking feminazi hypocrites.

Yeah, if they gave consent to publish and sell the material it doesnt matter they claim they thought it would be for private collectors.

Satan :mad: ! !

We never lied to get girls to model for us, but then again we were doing really softcore stuff. Towards the end they were doing a little bit more hardcore stuff but that was after we had gotten to know them very well.

There is no need to lie... Just throw money at them.

love to see which girls are in the complaint, to see their vids.

The problem is, they have 22 girls claiming they (GDP) misrepresented the contract.

If it was just one girl that was making this claim it wouldn't be a problem.

22 is a problem. It shows they were patently trying to deceive these girls and that deception can null and void any contract.

The interesting thing is these girls were more than willing to act like cock crazed sluts on film IF only a small number of people would see it.

I bet they are just pissed they didn't get paid enough rather than being shocked or shamed. Watch the videos. These girls are complete whores.

I am talking about their claim, that they did not know the content would be published online, because this seems to be the most important thing they bring up. It looks like some of them signed the contract only because they though it would be a private video - well this argument would be quite invalid if the contract stated they agreed with publishing.

Just because a contract is nullified, it does not mean it can't be used as an evidence in court showing they KNEW it was intended to go online. I bet they didn't even read it before signing it. Beside that, a court has to rule a contract void - and that has not happened yet, has it?

Another interesting thing is that as it seems they all started to bitch after they found the videos online - not right after they "forced" them to shoot. Which is rather interesting. Does that show they are more concerned about the content being published and not about them being forced to perform in a porn shoot???

I believe, from what I've read, that's the hurdle they need to overcome. Once they can prove they were deceived (GDP lying and misrepresenting the contract) then they can void the contract. Once it's voided, they then can say due to their misrepresentation, they've suffered from it.

Every model release pretty much says that the producer can redistribute it via any medium they want - film, dvd, print, internet, broadcast etc. Now GDP telling the girls they weren't going to do that, well, you can't do that. Hence the plaintiffs lawyer having 22 girls in the complaint all showing GDP patently lied.

And you have to remember, this is a civil trial. This is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," this is "could this have possibly happened." The burden of proof is much less.


We've always been upfront with the models and told them do not do this if you have a problem with someone seeing it because they can and most likely will see this. We record them reading the contract. We record them agreeing to everything so they can't come back and claim otherwise. And it actually saved our asses a few years ago. A girl we shot back in 2007 claimed she was drunk and didn't sign a contract. Her attorney contacted us and we sent over the video along with the model release.. he replied "thank you gentleman, have a nice day." And that was the end of that.

It would be easily provable whether the signature/handwriting is hers or not, even without the video, but yeah, I film them too.

Just out today...

A Porn Company Whistleblower’s Shocking Testimony: Attacks, Lies, and Cover-Ups

https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-porn...ups?ref=scroll

yup, I always told the truth to my girls too. They knew I was doing it for the internet. I told them that your family will find your pics/vids at some point and if they didn't then I wasn't doing my job marketing their content. They were happy I was straight with them.

I had a HOT college girl that was going to be a lawyer and I basically talked her out of doing modeling cause it would hurt her career.

Ditto mate i've refused girls that do law/teaching/nursing because those are jobs for life.

Once a girl is expecting a certain amount after flying out to shoot contentand is told no sorry you are fucking if you want any money at all. They could have there own hotel bill to pay or anything it puts any girl in a bad place.

It's a shitty business practice.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-porn...ups?ref=scroll

Pratt sounds like an asshole that Moses worked for for over 3 years?????

Indeed she was , but she is back from the dead via these type of lawsuits. After all she was the one who introduced this dictum: "A woman has no right to consent to participate in pornography"....:2 cents:

i thought i would never say this to you but you are right. : ) One girl you can say liar, 22 it was a problem. Also you would be shocked how naive young people can be even though they basically grew up with the internet.Also no one should do porn until 28 yrs old. At point all the discussion making parts of the brain are all matured.

Then If they strand them they go to the cops and things get solved.

Sadly I agree with Czarina. All they had to do was say no.

People need to own their actions now days.

many agents play this game :2 cents:

a lawyer put that together, no way 22 models would suddenly decide to sue :2 cents:

I think I heard at the time, 3-7K

:thumbsup

I have stopped a few productions after getting clear indications that the model lacked understanding of the situation as far as publication

young women have a hard time saying no. these guys are experts at getting young women to say yes. I heard this story countless times about anal scenes, IR and gang bangs. sad fact of life.

It's not so simple as to just say the girls should have gone to the police. In a perfect world, there would be justice for all. But I suspect in this type of situation, police would say that it's a contract dispute and a civil matter that is not under their jurisdiction.

Even if there was a crime, many victims don't report them. I'm not saying what happened to these girls with GDP was sexual assault, but some might perceive what happened as being a sexual crime. According to mcasa.org's Reporting Sexual Assault: Why Survivors Often Don’t,

Yeah but stranding them isn't a criminal offense.

And I do agree they could have just said "no" but when you factor everything in i.e. the lying, the coercion, misrepresentation of the contracts (saying it was only going to be on DVD outside of the US) and having TWENTY TWO girls testify that GDP had a pattern of this = GDP going tits up.

Most civil cases get settled out of court so I wonder if GDP even offered any kind of settlement to the girls.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. My guess is the girls win and win BIG.

This is why it's million times better to work with professional models. They already know how the production works, their families know what they do, their friends know as their content is on the net and since they usually do that for living, they don't try to hide it at all, so there are no worries about dealing with "my mom / boyfriend / grandma / boss found my videos online" :2 cents:

Exactly! :thumbsup

this shit is legit wild.

GDP, Russians...Cartel https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investig...510221931.html

:1orglaugh

Are these girls dumb as fuck?

2 pages of dumb sluts