LOS ANGELES—The law firm representing the founder of NoFap in a civil racketeering lawsuit against the parent company of Pornhub is accused of lying to the court, according to a series of filings viewed by AVN, which were filed by defendants seeking dismissal of the lawsuit before a federal court in Pennsylvania.
Alexander Rhodes, the founder of NoFap LLC, and his company, a Pennsylvania-registered corporation, sued Aylo, two scientists, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the parent company of academic publisher Taylor & Francis for defamation and civil conspiracy to commit defamation as a part of a racketeering enterprise.
AVN has reported extensively on the case since its initial filing in a state-level court of common pleas before it was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which is based in Pittsburgh. Rhodes alleges a conspiracy bankrolled by Aylo to defame him and cause harm to his so-called "self-help" group, designed to help predominantly men kick ostensible "pornography addictions." Central to the case are Drs. Nicole Prause of UCLA and David Ley of a private practice.
Prause and Ley are prominent academic clinicians who are skeptical of health claims associated with the NoFap platform.
These claims include sentiments that abstaining from masturbation or viewing legally-produced pornographic content can "reboot" a person's brain who is "addicted" to viewing pornographic material. But a clear mountain of evidence exists indicating that the proposed diagnosis of pornography addiction is not recognized by major professional medical, public health and scientific bodies, like the American Psychological Association or the American Public Health Association.
Prause and Ley argue this in peer-reviewed journal articles published by Taylor & Francis, a subsidiary of the U.K.-based academic publishing firm Informa. After an initial filing in federal court, Rhodes' legal counsel filed claims under federal RICO statutes to initiate a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
In the latest developments, all defendants in the case have filed or concurred in motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. But a closer review of the filings now alleges that Rhodes and his counsel, Pittsburgh-based attorneys and brothers Peter and David Kobylinski, lied in court filings.
A source close to the litigation, who wished to remain anonymous, told AVN that efforts are underway to argue that the Kobylinski brothers violated a key procedural rule governing attorney conduct in federal courts nationwide. This action falls under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (FRCP 11 or Rule 11), which regulates arguments made by litigants to be truthful, legal and derivative of a "factual basis." The source said the racketeering claims in the federal case are not on a "factual basis."
If the court finds merit in these claims, the Kobylinski brothers could face court fines and penalties. As of the January 30 docket updates, all defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Also, under FRCP, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim argues that, even if the factual allegations in a complaint are true, they are legally insufficient to establish a cause of action. Note, these motions are rarely granted.
Attorneys for Aylo, Prause, Ley, Taylor & Francis, and the Regents of the University of California (UCLA) filed court briefs synthesizing standing case law, arguing that Rhodes' and NoFap's claims lack a factual basis and personal jurisdiction, among other grounds. The filing made on behalf of UCLA states that the plaintiffs' allegations are "conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by factual averments or legal authority linking the Regents to the alleged wrongdoing" in the racketeering case.
Similarly, Aylo's attorneys argued the lawsuit is "fatally deficient on all counts." Aylo's collective counsel additionally notes, "Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to allege any harm proximately caused by the Aylo Defendants, whether directly or pursuant to an agency relationship.
"Instead, Plaintiffs improperly attempt to impute conduct of others to the Aylo Defendants, not least by repeated references to a Non-Disparagement provision in a 2021 Settlement Agreement to which the Aylo Defendants are not a party and had no involvement whatsoever," they added.
The settlement agreement Aylo references is between Rhodes and Prause in prior litigation and also presents a very limited defamation argument. In the brief on behalf of Prause, her attorney argues that the settlement is worded in a manner that doesn't establish personal jurisdiction in a Pennsylvania-based federal court to litigate.
Ley had his attorneys argue that there is a lack of jurisdiction and standing, and that the plaintiffs, including Rhodes, have no viable case.
His attorney notes that the "court should dismiss these claims in their entirety ... because Plaintiffs fail to plead all the requisite claim elements and/or provide any factual support that could permit this court to draw a reasonable inference that any of those claims are plausible."
If the court rules in favor of the defendants, this could prompt third-party inquiries into whether Rhodes and/or the Kobylinski brothers engaged in misconduct that could lead to a complaint with the state Bar Association and further investigation, notes another anonymous source familiar with the case.
