Post: #1

This lawsuit started a few years ago but seems to keep growing as more girls and jumping in nbcsandiego.com/investigations GDP

Girlsdoporn(GDP) originally got famous around 5 years ago after a Miss Teen Delaware winner did a video for them and got stripped of her crown. They also had a Miss Colorado runner up do a video as well /thread-32797.html

Anyway this lawsuit has been around for a while and looks like it keeps growing and and some things now are not looking good for these guys especially in today's climate.

Bulk of the case seems to be the following;


*GDP owners setup fake casting websites to filter in talent. Girls would submit for generic modeling gigs and this would lead to a series of emails/calls where they then would would tell them that gigs were for porn and it was for private collectors that would only be on DVD only for release in markets like Australia.

*GDP used a bogus reference to backup the story about the DVD and that the videos do not get leaked. Apparently the court docs show there is testimony from a girl claiming that she was paid and instructed on how to lie to the girls.

*GDP used coercion tactics to get them to sign the modeling contracts if the girls attempted to read them.

*GDP reneged on the pay usually citing specific body flaws and that the girls were uglier in real life.



At first glance you would assume entire thing is complete bullshit. I mean how stupid would you have to be to believe someone is going to pay you $5000 and the video will never be shown online. But when you think view the evidence and realize you are dealing with largely 18 year old girls and specifically ones who are stupid/and or major risk taker types then you can start to believe that this casting actually would work. Full grown adults fall for dumber scams everyday(sending money to Nigeria to some prince). So 18 year olds falling for this isn't that outlandish.

The issue for GDP is that the evidence seems to be there that a lot of this is true. They have testimony from a girl being paid to make the referral calls to backup the DVD only claim and evidence of the girls being contacted from the fake casting websites. Add on these guys were using burner phones and my guess if the GDP owners probably have no proof in any emails or texts that the video was for girlsdoporn. The only thing they have is a signed contract which states the videos could be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

The coercion part of the case sounds weak from what I read and might be just bullshit to get around the girls not reading the entire contract. Difficult to say about the guys reneging on pay but if that is true then I'm blown away these guys would be that stupid to put a target on their backs like that. Running a porn website is a risky business if you ever have to go to court. Often the law is whatever a judge says the law is and porn isn't some business you want in the hands of a judge. Judge may want to just fuck you over and at the very least multiple media outlets will pickup the story which is good for business but bad for keeping anonymity. I find it amazing these guys were smart enough to run this business but use risky tactics like that(if it is true).

Post: #2

(02-11-2019 07:24 PM)The Wire Wrote:  *GDP owners setup fake casting websites to filter in talent. Girls would submit for generic modeling gigs and this would lead to a series of emails/calls where they then would would tell them that gigs were for porn and it was for private collectors that would only be on DVD only for release in markets like Australia.

*GDP used a bogus reference to backup the story about the DVD and that the videos do not get leaked. Apparently the court docs show there is testimony from a girl claiming that she was paid and instructed on how to lie to the girls.

*GDP used coercion tactics to get them to sign the modeling contracts if the girls attempted to read them.

*GDP reneged on the pay usually citing specific body flaws and that the girls were uglier in real life.

This part made me smile.

I watched the Miss Colorado ones. Kristy Althaus. I believe she now works as a camwhore.

Besides this lawsuit, maybe the best story to come out of GDP is that of Selena Vargas, who appeared in a photo with her boyfriend who was deploying overseas then later that day appeared in GDP wearing the same outfit (link NSFW, obviously).

Also, this sounds like the premise behind another porn site I've perused, Backroom Casting Couch. Their cover story is they trick girls into appearing in a "casting video" which they will then show to porn producers. I always assumed the girls were in on it, and the whole thing is faked. But in light of this, now I gotta wonder.

Post: #3

(02-11-2019 07:39 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Also, this sounds like the premise behind another porn site I've perused, Backroom Casting Couch. Their cover story is they trick girls into appearing in a "casting video" which they will then show to porn producers. I always assumed the girls were in on it, and the whole thing is faked. But in light of this, now I gotta wonder.

It's definitely fake. If you google any of those girls hard enough you'll find they have a prolific background on manyvids or one of those camwhore sites.

Post: #4

Color me astonished that a porn production company would act in a dishonest, unethical, sleazy manner.

(Incidentally, the NBC San Diego article linked above has quotes from a woman who worked for the company as an administrative assistant for three years. Say what? I was under the impression this sort of thing was a one- or possibly two-person operation. Not only that, but the head of the company reported his earnings at one point to be over $60,000 a month. Do they really have that many paying subscribers? Or is the company part of some kind of money laundering scheme?)

No matter what the people at the company might have told them (i.e., the videos would be for sale only in Australia), the girls still agreed to get banged out by a stranger on camera. Anyone can rip a DVD and post it online, so everything they say about having been humiliated, their friends/family/coworkers finding out, being targeted for harassment, etc., still could have happened even if everything the company reps told them was true.

In a proper world, girls of this age would have limited access to online technology, and thus their ability to even learn about these types of "job opportunities" would be restricted. If one of them did somehow happen to hear about it, there would be a sensible husband or father in their life who would quickly intercept the communication and shut it down — making it clear in no uncertain terms that being reamed & filmed by unknown persons in a rented hotel room is both extremely risky, and potentially tremendously damaging to a young lady's reputation and future.

Post: #5

(02-11-2019 07:24 PM)The Wire Wrote:  This lawsuit started a few years ago but seems to keep growing as more girls and jumping in nbcsandiego.com/investigations GDP

Girlsdoporn(GDP) originally got famous around 5 years ago after a Miss Teen Delaware winner did a video for them and got stripped of her crown. They also had a Miss Colorado runner up do a video as well /thread-32797.html

Anyway this lawsuit has been around for a while and looks like it keeps growing and and some things now are not looking good for these guys especially in today's climate.

Bulk of the case seems to be the following;


*GDP owners setup fake casting websites to filter in talent. Girls would submit for generic modeling gigs and this would lead to a series of emails/calls where they then would would tell them that gigs were for porn and it was for private collectors that would only be on DVD only for release in markets like Australia.

*GDP used a bogus reference to backup the story about the DVD and that the videos do not get leaked. Apparently the court docs show there is testimony from a girl claiming that she was paid and instructed on how to lie to the girls.

*GDP used coercion tactics to get them to sign the modeling contracts if the girls attempted to read them.

*GDP reneged on the pay usually citing specific body flaws and that the girls were uglier in real life.



At first glance you would assume entire thing is complete bullshit. I mean how stupid would you have to be to believe someone is going to pay you $5000 and the video will never be shown online. But when you think view the evidence and realize you are dealing with largely 18 year old girls and specifically ones who are stupid/and or major risk taker types then you can start to believe that this casting actually would work. Full grown adults fall for dumber scams everyday(sending money to Nigeria to some prince). So 18 year olds falling for this isn't that outlandish.

The issue for GDP is that the evidence seems to be there that a lot of this is true. They have testimony from a girl being paid to make the referral calls to backup the DVD only claim and evidence of the girls being contacted from the fake casting websites. Add on these guys were using burner phones and my guess if the GDP owners probably have no proof in any emails or texts that the video was for girlsdoporn. The only thing they have is a signed contract which states the videos could be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

The coercion part of the case sounds weak from what I read and might be just bullshit to get around the girls not reading the entire contract. Difficult to say about the guys reneging on pay but if that is true then I'm blown away these guys would be that stupid to put a target on their backs like that. Running a porn website is a risky business if you ever have to go to court. Often the law is whatever a judge says the law is and porn isn't some business you want in the hands of a judge. Judge may want to just fuck you over and at the very least multiple media outlets will pickup the story which is good for business but bad for keeping anonymity. I find it amazing these guys were smart enough to run this business but use risky tactics like that(if it is true).

One of the girls made a public complaint (Reddit IAMA IIRC). Most of it was bullshit hamsterization, but a good hunk of it was exactly the kind of stuff the stuff a dumb 18 year old would fall for. The taking her to an isolated place she didn't know and yelling at her, for being a fat, ugly liar until she broke down, boot camp style, and was more pliable to lower pay/signing forms.

Post: #6

I don't understand why porn is allowed to be produced, it takes advantage of young girls who are damaged mentally for life. It's all fun and games until it's your daughter or relative...It's very sad.

Post: #7

(02-11-2019 10:56 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  (Incidentally, the NBC San Diego article linked above has quotes from a woman who worked for the company as an administrative assistant for three years. Say what? I was under the impression this sort of thing was a one- or possibly two-person operation. Not only that, but the head of the company reported his earnings at one point to be over $60,000 a month. Do they really have that many paying subscribers? Or is the company part of some kind of money laundering scheme?)

They have a lot of shell companies associated with this but checking their website they have two options $30 for 1 month and a $60 for 2 months and it allows users to download and access 4k content. Given how popular this site is...just do the math and it doesn't take that many people shelling out $60 a month to add up fast.

Quote:No matter what the people at the company might have told them (i.e., the videos would be for sale only in Australia), the girls still agreed to get banged out by a stranger on camera. Anyone can rip a DVD and post it online, so everything they say about having been humiliated, their friends/family/coworkers finding out, being targeted for harassment, etc., still could have happened even if everything the company reps told them was true.

Agreed. Even if those guys could convince the girls that the DVD had some kind of copy protection on it anyone with a modern smartphone could just record a screen in 4k and have a decent copy of it for upload. The probably told them the private collectors were a very limited audience and under some kind of contract that they legally couldn't distribute but anyone with half a brain knows these things will eventually get leaked at some point. Reality is this is how amateur porn used to be in the 90s and earlier and girls at the time would do this and it was largely considered anonymous. It would just be VHS and the audience would be somewhat limited but now that the internet genie is out videos from 30 years ago end up online.

Post: #8

(02-11-2019 11:00 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  One of the girls made a public complaint (Reddit IAMA IIRC). Most of it was bullshit hamsterization, but a good hunk of it was exactly the kind of stuff the stuff a dumb 18 year old would fall for. The taking her to an isolated place she didn't know and yelling at her, for being a fat, ugly liar until she broke down, boot camp style, and was more pliable to lower pay/signing forms.

I did read that before. What I remember it sounded like the basic premise of the story was true but she added in a lot of bullshit as well. Her version was that they actually flew her out to San Diego and then told her it was for filming porn then used coercion tactics to get her to do it on the spot which makes no logical sense for someone running a website that big and doesn't match up with the rest of the girls versions. If you want to get the police involved then you would do exactly what she described and I can't logically imagine they would try something like that as the risk involved would be astronomical.

Post: #9

I would be stunned, I mean STUNNED, if any of this was true. Women who do porn are the most unstable sluts you can imagine, and their word is not to be trusted on anything.

Men in porn might be scum bags, but they are NOT stupid.

In fact, they religiously document everything. Actresses are video interviewed before and after shoots to specify exactly what will happen during the scene, and they then sign contracts beforehand specifying what they are agreeing to.

The producers/Directors are also red pilled about false rape allegations. Whether or not the actresses realize it, a camera is always rolling during the shoot.

Why do they take such steps?

"Porn actors Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon have released a more than hour-long YouTube video detailing two different incidents of alleged abuse on adult sets...Their accusations include misleading booking practices, excessive face-slapping and choking, and boundary violations.
...
Raven says she has filed a police report and undergone a medical evaluation as part of the investigation."

jezebel.com/porn-actors-leigh-raven-and-riley-nixon-allege-abuse-v-1823677195

Her initial YouTube video was a detailed 40 minute description of horrendous abuse, very similar to the GDP accusations. Pretty compelling, right?

WRONG!

She was shamelessly lying her ass off, as you can see in this very NSFW video:
efukt.com/22402_How_Does_Sexual_Consent_Work.html

Shockingly, the police decided not to prosecute:

"Now the police and the District Attorney’s office, neutral bodies tasked with evaluating evidence, including the veracity of witnesses, have also concluded that Leigh Raven was lying and that there was no assault on the set of the March 6 production.

Or, to put it another way: in the era of #MeToo, after evaluating all the evidence presented, a female police detective decided she did not not even need to interview the man Leigh Raven accused of sexual assault. And on April 18, the D.A. rejected the case based on the lack of evidence that a crime had been committed.

Moreover, at the time of his notification, police confirmed that Just Dave was never even a suspect, only a potential witness.

I repeat, based on the report Raven filed with police, director Just Dave was never even a suspect in any crime."

NSFW link: mikesouth.com/legal/leigh-raven-phony-abuse-case-closed-just-dave-and-rico-strong-absolved-as-d-a-rejects-case-26805/

As Roosh has said....all public rape accusations are false. I have yet to see a case that definitively proved otherwise.

Post: #10

(02-11-2019 07:39 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Also, this sounds like the premise behind another porn site I've perused, Backroom Casting Couch. Their cover story is they trick girls into appearing in a "casting video" which they will then show to porn producers. I always assumed the girls were in on it, and the whole thing is faked. But in light of this, now I gotta wonder.

Hate to burst the bubble, but zero chance. Imagine being a scumbag guy who coerces/tricks women into anal sex....but then releases videos of it online. One of the fastest ways to find yourself in major legal trouble imaginable.

The GDP girls are just having massive, massive levels of regret since they basically ruined their lives with those videos, and need to try and publicly redeem themselves by pretending to be "victims". Same thing with the women who whored themselves out to Harvey Weinstein, now pretending they were forced into it, trying to change history so they don't have to be permanently ashamed of themselves.

These are all prime examples of why women should not have sexual freedom. It is not just totally unnatural, but incredibly unhealthy and socially destructive.

Post: #11

How could someone born into the Internet age not know a DVD "sold in Australia" could be circulated and/or sold everywhere online?

Amazon.com was founded in 1994. eBay was started in 1995. Both of them are older than these girls. Both sell scads of porn DVDs, VHS tapes, and magazines. File sharing (via Napster) is now 20 years old and the Pirate Bay is almost that old.

I have aunts in their 80s who tell their granddaughters not to take selfies because they can be copied and circulated endlessly. They didn't even know of the Internet until their 50s and yet they know this.

***

The only women who could be truly taken by surprise that their images are shared online are the ones who posed for lesser-known men's mags before about 1992 (with big-name mags like Playboy and Penthouse, you had to assume you were going to get some level of sustained fame).

Some of these mags had "Girl Next Door"-type features, where husbands and boyfriends would send in nude pics of their women. Back then, if you wanted to get issues of any magazine after its initial run, you had to send away for back issues, which were expensive and usually out-of-stock.

No one in the pre-Internet age could have conceived of concepts like "scanning," "bought on eBay," "going viral," "shared through email," "online galleries," or anything else that might embarrass a suburban mom who showed her tits once in 1989 and is now worried it's going to come back to haunt her.

Post: #12

(02-12-2019 12:21 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 07:39 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Also, this sounds like the premise behind another porn site I've perused, Backroom Casting Couch. Their cover story is they trick girls into appearing in a "casting video" which they will then show to porn producers. I always assumed the girls were in on it, and the whole thing is faked. But in light of this, now I gotta wonder.

Hate to burst the bubble, but zero chance. Imagine being a scumbag guy who coerces/tricks women into anal sex....but then releases videos of it online. One of the fastest ways to find yourself in major legal trouble imaginable.

The GDP girls are just having massive, massive levels of regret since they basically ruined their lives with those videos, and need to try and publicly redeem themselves by pretending to be "victims". Same thing with the women who whored themselves out to Harvey Weinstein, now pretending they were forced into it, trying to change history so they don't have to be permanently ashamed of themselves.

These are all prime examples of why women should not have sexual freedom. It is not just totally unnatural, but incredibly unhealthy and socially destructive.

Yep, you nailed it. This is all about regret.

Perhaps the girls are mislead about how the video will be released, but once you sign a waiver, the producers are free to do whatever they want with the video. Naive, yes, but victims? I don't think so.

In the beginning of each video they have an interview with each girl where they talk about themselves. Most of the girls have boyfriends. A few are even engaged. The problem for them is the site is so popular that a lot of the girls are eventually doxxed by the general public and their real names come out.

Just another example of hypergamy and yolo at its finest.

Post: #13

Delete

Post: #14

(02-12-2019 08:28 AM)Thot____Patroller Wrote:  I don't understand why porn is allowed to be produced, it takes advantage of young girls who are damaged mentally for life. It's all fun and games until it's your daughter or relative...It's very sad.

Porn is the mental factory where they make male NPCs.

Post: #15

I was disappointed on viewing because those videos have little to nothing to do with Gross Domestic Product

Post: #16

(02-12-2019 12:21 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  Hate to burst the bubble, but zero chance. Imagine being a scumbag guy who coerces/tricks women into anal sex....but then releases videos of it online. One of the fastest ways to find yourself in major legal trouble imaginable.

The GDP girls are just having massive, massive levels of regret since they basically ruined their lives with those videos, and need to try and publicly redeem themselves by pretending to be "victims". Same thing with the women who whored themselves out to Harvey Weinstein, now pretending they were forced into it, trying to change history so they don't have to be permanently ashamed of themselves.

I wonder if every aspect of the performance is included in the waiver beforehand, i.e. anal, facial, creampie, etc.

Also, I'm sure some of Weinstein's accusers just regret their choices, but I also think there are some who are legitimate victims, e.g. Mira Sorvino who declined his advances and whose career suffered as a result.

Post: #17

Girlsdoporn is very sleazy but I doubt this case goes anywhere. I feel like I heard about it 2 years ago and the site is still chugging out vids on a weekly basis so clearly they haven't been shut down yet.

From what I've read, some parts of the lawsuit are definitely true. They used to and perhaps still do recruit on modelling sites. The old alias was Bubble Gum Casting, and if you looked at that site you'd notice that any prospective "models" would be referred to a girl who did it before (false). Some part during the phone call, they'd let slip that the shoot was actually a porno and if the girl was still good to go, they'd send the girl an airplane ticket to San Diego.

Now that's where the sleaziness comes in - these girls, upon arriving, can't really back out at this point as they've flown from wherever they're from all the way to San Diego. They're asked to sign a contract and then the porn shoot commences. If you've ever seen a GDP video, it's clear that a good number experience massive regret during the shoot. The girl that posted on Reddit had clear tear lines ruining her mascara during her vid. GDP even releases some half completed scenes on their site where presumably the girl breaks down and decides to quit the shoot early. It doesn't help that the male actor (usually Dre) fucking destroys these girls. He's toned down a lot, but back when he first started it looked like he was hellbent on destroying their cervixes.

The other sleazy thing brought up in the lawsuit is whether or not these girls really are told that the vids would be released online. I suspect they're told, but in an indirect manner (maybe just written somewhere in the contract they sign). Either way though it really is retarded of these girls not to think that these vids might end up online someday. Even if it really is for a private collector in Australia...what's stopping this so called private collector from releasing the vids himself online? Nothing really.

In any case, most of the girls on the site have their identities leaked online by some real world horny acquaintance. And then their entire hometown brands them as slut. And then the massive regret comes in, which probably led to some of the girlsdoporn girls banding together for this lawsuit.

As a random sidenote, something else I found really interesting is that most of the girls' vids are released like 3-6 months later from when they're shot (if this one girl's reddit AMA is to be believed). I'm fairly sure this is how they get their hottest girls to do repeat vids, as the girls think after a month that everything's good, they got 5k+ in their bank account, and they decide to slut it up again for more money. But then they realize a few months later that their vids are online for everyone to see. Lol.

Post: #18

(02-12-2019 12:55 PM)Dirtyblueshirt Wrote:  Perhaps the girls are mislead about how the video will be released, but once you sign a waiver, the producers are free to do whatever they want with the video.

Not exactly. If that was true this would have been thrown out in court years ago. If the court is convinced misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process the resulting contract can be held unenforceable. Meaning you and I can't verbally agree on one thing but you have language buried within a contract that somehow negates what we agreed on. From what I understand they didn't sign a contract to appear on girlsdoporn but they signed a large contract that had language in it for the pornographic videos to be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

They have evidence showing misrepresentation occurred such as reference girls being paid money to give false referrals to the women https://drive.google.com/file/d/15N-RymJ...NOuGB/view

"I have known Andre Garcia since at least September of 2015.
Around December of 2016, Andre Garcia offered to pay me to act as a “reference” for
him, Michael Pratt, and Matthew Wolfe by helping them recruit women to appear in pornographic videos for their websites. As a reference, they told me I would speak to young women, who they were attempting to recruit to appear in pornography on their websites, via phone, FaceTime, and text message in order to appease any concerns the women had.
Andre Garcia coached me on how to correspond with the prospective women to gain
their trust, even if that included telling lies and hiding information. Garcia instructed me to do or not do the following things while speaking with the prospective women as a reference:
- to tell the prospective women that I too had previously filmed a video for them, even though
I had never done so;
- to tell prospective women they would remain completely anonymous;
- to tell the women that I come from a small town, shot a video for them, that no one has
found out, and that the women had nothing to worry about;
- to tell prospective women the videos they filmed would never be released in the United States or on the Internet;
- to never reveal to the prospective women the fact that Andre Garcia, Matthew Wolfe, and
Michael Pratt owned and operated an online pornography company
to never reveal to the prospective women the fact that the previous videos Andre Garcia,
Matthew Wolfe, and Michael Pratt had filmed were published on the Internet
to never reveal to the prospective women the fact that the prospective women’s videos were
going to be published on girlsdoporn girlsdotoys and throughout the
Internet, including free pornography sites like Pornhub; and
- to never reveal Andre Garcia, Michael Pratt, and Matthew Wolfe’s real names to the
prospective women.
Based on discussions with Garcia, I know that Andre Garcia, Michael Pratt, and
Matthew Wolfe use fake names (such as Jonathan) in their advertisements for recruitment and
communications with the women they mean to recruit for their websites. I know they did this to avoid
detection.
I understand that a lawsuit is pending in San Diego Superior Court against Andre Garcia, Michael Pratt, Matthew Wolfe, and others affiliated with girlsdoporn and
girlsdotoys. After the lawsuit started, Andre Garcia offered me approximately $1,000.00 to not cooperate with the women who filed the lawsuit, their attorneys, and/or otherwise testify.
Around October 2017, I received a phone call on my cell phone from an attorney while I was in Cabo San Lucas with Andre Garcia. Andre Garcia took the phone from me and spoke to the attorney."

They have text message evidence of this to go along with testimony;

https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987...Text+4.png
https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987...Text+5.png



They also have the casting websites that GDP used for recruitment. The biggest litmus test is that GDP doesn't seem to have a single piece of evidence that they ever told them this was for the GDP(from what I know). No texts, no emails, no contracts...etc. A judge with half a brain looking over this is going to piece together this pretty easy. Trust me I'm all for girls being held responsible for stupid shit they do but I am highly against anyone who acts out of good faith when it comes to contracts and waivers.

Post: #19

(02-12-2019 02:40 PM)The Wire Wrote:  They also have the casting websites that GDP used for recruitment. The biggest litmus test is that GDP doesn't seem to have a single piece of evidence that they ever told them this was for the GDP(from what I know). No texts, no emails, no contracts...etc. A judge with half a brain looking over this is going to piece together this pretty easy. Trust me I'm all for girls being held responsible for stupid shit they do but I am highly against anyone who acts out of good faith when it comes to contracts and waivers.

Yeah, they don't deserve prison for this, but based on the evidence these girls do have grounds to sue. Outright lying and coercing teenagers crosses the line, I hope these guys are held accountable.

Post: #20

Post: #21

(02-12-2019 08:28 AM)Thot____Patroller Wrote:  I don't understand why porn is allowed to be produced, it takes advantage of young girls who are damaged mentally for life. It's all fun and games until it's your daughter

Obligatory

Post: #22

Can someone link me to the AMAs mentioned?

Post: #23

(02-12-2019 02:22 PM)InXile Wrote:  As a random sidenote, something else I found really interesting is that most of the girls' vids are released like 3-6 months later from when they're shot (if this one girl's reddit AMA is to be believed). I'm fairly sure this is how they get their hottest girls to do repeat vids, as the girls think after a month that everything's good, they got 5k+ in their bank account, and they decide to slut it up again for more money. But then they realize a few months later that their vids are online for everyone to see. Lol.

One of Max Hardcore's methods was to do one vanilla scene where he respected her boundaries, get her to go on camera with an "exit interview" talking about what a good time she had, and then another scene at a later date where he absolutely shellacked her.

Post: #24

Whether they have a case or not, it's hard for me to have sympathy for these girls. They knew what they were there for. The first line they all say in each episode: "I'm here to make my first porn video"

About the girl in the reddit AMA (asian girl, science major), she did 2 videos. If the experience was so horrible and you were "duped", why would you come back for a second video? The $$$ of course.

If I had to guess, I would say that the biggest reason for these lawsuits is that some of these girls have very rich parents, who in turn hire some high-powered lawyers to get the videos taken down. Just a hunch. Years ago, Joe Francis and his company Girls Gone Wild probably had the same problems and were attacked in a similar way, but he had the revenue and his own team of lawyers to combat this.

Post: #25

LOLOL

(02-11-2019 07:24 PM)The Wire Wrote:  This lawsuit started a few years ago but seems to keep growing as more girls and jumping in nbcsandiego.com/investigations GDP

Girlsdoporn(GDP) originally got famous around 5 years ago after a Miss Teen Delaware winner did a video for them and got stripped of her crown. They also had a Miss Colorado runner up do a video as well /thread-32797.html

Anyway this lawsuit has been around for a while and looks like it keeps growing and and some things now are not looking good for these guys especially in today's climate.

Bulk of the case seems to be the following;


*GDP owners setup fake casting websites to filter in talent. Girls would submit for generic modeling gigs and this would lead to a series of emails/calls where they then would would tell them that gigs were for porn and it was for private collectors that would only be on DVD only for release in markets like Australia.

*GDP used a bogus reference to backup the story about the DVD and that the videos do not get leaked. Apparently the court docs show there is testimony from a girl claiming that she was paid and instructed on how to lie to the girls.

*GDP used coercion tactics to get them to sign the modeling contracts if the girls attempted to read them.

*GDP reneged on the pay usually citing specific body flaws and that the girls were uglier in real life.



At first glance you would assume entire thing is complete bullshit. I mean how stupid would you have to be to believe someone is going to pay you $5000 and the video will never be shown online. But when you think view the evidence and realize you are dealing with largely 18 year old girls and specifically ones who are stupid/and or major risk taker types then you can start to believe that this casting actually would work. Full grown adults fall for dumber scams everyday(sending money to Nigeria to some prince). So 18 year olds falling for this isn't that outlandish.

The issue for GDP is that the evidence seems to be there that a lot of this is true. They have testimony from a girl being paid to make the referral calls to backup the DVD only claim and evidence of the girls being contacted from the fake casting websites. Add on these guys were using burner phones and my guess if the GDP owners probably have no proof in any emails or texts that the video was for girlsdoporn. The only thing they have is a signed contract which states the videos could be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

The coercion part of the case sounds weak from what I read and might be just bullshit to get around the girls not reading the entire contract. Difficult to say about the guys reneging on pay but if that is true then I'm blown away these guys would be that stupid to put a target on their backs like that. Running a porn website is a risky business if you ever have to go to court. Often the law is whatever a judge says the law is and porn isn't some business you want in the hands of a judge. Judge may want to just fuck you over and at the very least multiple media outlets will pickup the story which is good for business but bad for keeping anonymity. I find it amazing these guys were smart enough to run this business but use risky tactics like that(if it is true).