SAN DIEGO, Calif.—Accusations against Pornhub didn't make the biggest splash at last year's GirlsDoPorn trial, when owner Michael Pratt, cameraman Matthew Wolfe, actor/director Reuben "Andre" Garcia and office assistant Valorie Moser were accused—and later found guilty—of tricking 22 Jane Does into performing hardcore sex scenes, paying them less than promised and, perhaps worst of all, posting the scenes to Pornhub and other clip sites rather than releasing the material only overseas, as the Does had been promised. At that time, Pornhub and its affiliated sites were just one example of the myriad ways GirlsDoPorn made money off its lies and deceit—but now, in the wake of the massive verdict the Does received from Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright, attorneys Brian Holm (who was part of the prosecuting team in the GirlsDoPorn case) and John O'Brien have filed a new lawsuit, this time against Pornhub's owner, MindGeek—and this time, there are 40 Jane Does listed as plaintiffs, all accusing MindGeek/Pornhub of engaging in a business that “'knew or should have known' it was profiting from its participation in a sex trafficking venture," and that under United States Code Title 18 §1595, "is civilly liable to the victims for damages and attorney fees."
However, it's actually §1591 that spells out what crime was committed by GirlsDoPorn, and in which MindGeek/Pornhub was allegedly complicit. That section of the law, titled "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion," states that, "Whoever knowingly... recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in [such] a venture... in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion ... or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished." [Emphasis added] Such punishments may include fines or imprisonment, possibly for life.
However, the 40 Jane Does aren't attempting to prosecute MindGeek criminally; they simply want MindGeek, whose headquarters are outside the U.S. but which operates in the U.S. as a Delaware corporation, to pay them for, among other things, "effectively turning them into pariahs in their own communities," causing them to be "ostracized by friends and family," losing their jobs, and in some cases being expelled from college. "The relentless harassment caused all victims to become suicidal and some even attempted such."
The Jane Does' complaint recounts the trial and outcome of the GirlsDoPorn trial, but charges, in paragraph 61, that, "As early as 2009, and definitely by fall 2016, MindGeek knew GirlsDoPorn was trafficking its victims by using fraud, coercion, and intimidation as part of its customary business practices to get the women to film the videos. Despite this knowledge, MindGeek continued to partner with GirlsDoPorn, never bothering to investigate or question its business partner regarding the mounting evidence of sex trafficking that MindGeek received. MindGeek continued its partnership with GirlsDoPorn until October 2019 when the Department of Justice shut down GirlsDoPorn by arresting and indicting its principals. At this point, there was no longer a company left for MindGeek to partner with." However, according to the complaint, even as late as December 12, 2020, MindGeek still had some of the challenged videos available to view on its sites. (MindGeek stated on its blog on December 14 that it had since removed all of its previously uploaded unverified content.)
And that "mounting evidence of sex trafficking" was reportedly massive. The complaint cites demands in 2016 and 2017 by Jane Doe No. 11 to MindGeek's "takedown portal" to which she wrote, in asking that her video be removed, "Reason: Im going to kill myself if this stays up here. I was scammed and told this was only going to be on dvds in another country. Please im begging you please ill pay!" One week later, Doe No. 11 again wrote to the takedown portal, "They scammed me and told me it was only going to dvds in another country. Please this is ruining my life." (Misspellings in original)
Finally, on May 31, 2017, Doe No. 11 wrote to the portal, "I WAS SCAMMED. THIS COMPANY LIED TO ME ABOUT THIS BEING ON THE INTERNET! THEY TOLD ME IT WOULD ONLY BE AVAILIBLE ON DVD IN AUSTRALIA. MY WORK FRIENDS AND FAMILY ALL KNOW AND THIS VERY LINK IS BEING SENT AROUND. I WANT TO JUST DIE."
According to the complaint, "Jane Doe No. 11’s video was on MindGeek’s Tubesites until after GirlsDoPorn’s principals were arrested in October 2019 when MindGeek finally decided to take action."
The complaint cites verbatim a couple of other requests for takedown by Does, then states, "These are just some of many examples of take down requests MindGeek received notifying MindGeek that GirlsDoPorn used fraud and coercion to get the women to engage in commercial sex acts and the corresponding harassment and suicidal tendencies the victims had as a result of the continued publication of the video. Plaintiffs have been informed and believe MindGeek received dozens, if not hundreds, of similar takedown requests from GirlsDoPorn victims over the years and never conducted an investigation of the repeated claims of fraud or coercion perpetrated by its content and viewshare partner, GirlsDoPorn." The complaint also notes that, "third-party companies sent hundreds, if not thousands, of notices to MindGeek advising MindGeek that it was publishing the victim’s videos without the victim’s consent."
In that regard, when informed of the takedown requests, MindGeek received responses from someone named "Jordan Powers, CEO" of "Bubblegum Films Inc.", supposedly a GirlsDoPorn partner with a Vanuatu address, contesting the takedown.
The complaint also charges that if anyone at MindGeek/Pornhub or its other tube sites had taken a look at some of the videos GirlsDoPorn was providing, it would have seen evidence that the plaintiffs had been tricked or coerced into performing, including, "The victim’s responses in the [pre-scene] interviews made clear they believed the video would not be published on the Internet or available to anyone in the United States," and "Some of GirlsDoPorn’s videos depict victims who are in visible distress, including, in some instances, bloodstained sheets and condoms. In other videos, tracks of the victim’s tears can be seen in the victim’s makeup." The complaint also charges that some of the plaintiffs were "clearly under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol based on the victim’s gait, blurred eyes, and slurred speech," and that, "Alcohol and marijuana paraphernalia are visibly strewn about the hotel room in the background of numerous videos."
However, as the heading to one paragraph of the complaint states, in all capitals, "MINDGEEK DESIGNED ITS INTERNAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO WILLFULLY KEEP ITS EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS IGNORANT OF THE PERVASIVE AMOUNT OF SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS’ VIDEOS BEING MARKETED, SOLD AND EXPLOITED ON ITS WEBSITES."
But the list of allegations against MindGeek hardly stops there. The complaint charges that even as GirlsDoPorn's principals were on civil trial, MindGeek attempted to buy the company, and the complaint goes into great detail regarding which tube sites have been/are MindGeek properties, as well as how the company makes money through subscriptions to its and its affiliates' pay sites.
One thing the complaint doesn't do is put an exact figure on the money damages it's seeking for the 40 Jane Doe plaintiffs, asking instead for "compensatory damages in an amount that exceeds one million dollars for each plaintiff"; "restitution for all monies MindGeek earned marketing, selling and exploiting Plaintiffs’ videos"; and "punitive damages in an amount that exceeds one million dollars per plaintiff"; as well as attorney fees and costs—with interest.
Oh; and "Permanently enjoining the Defendants from hosting Plaintiffs’ videos and/or profiting therefrom."
The complaint was filed Tuesday, December 15, so MindGeek and its affiliated companies have not yet had a chance to respond, and requests for comment from the company have not yet been answered.
The full complaint in Jane Doe Nos. 1-40 v. MG Freesites, Ltd., dba "Pornhub", et al, may be read here.
