Is it regret, or is it fraud? Women sue porn producers in Doe v. GirlsDoPorn

22 women have sued the pornography producers of GirlsDoPorn, arguing that the contracts they signed were obtained under fraud. In particular, they allege that they were lead to believe that the films would not be released in the USA and not released online.

In support of the claim, the women allege that the pornographer producer solicited the participation under ads that suggested clothed modeling, that they would remain anonymous, and that the producers paid third parties to falsely vouch that the content would not be shown in the united states, among other acts of alleged deception.

The women have alleged significant harm to them, including being continuously doxed and harassed by the general public. They have alleged being disowned by their families, suicidal thoughts, and other significant emotional distress by their content being widely disseminated.

Of course, there is a difference between legal negotiation and illegal fraud in the inducement sufficient to nullify the contract. To tell the difference, we must careful and dispassionately consider the facts and the law.

Is this an issue of regret after the fact, or is this an issue of fraud in the inducement of the contract?

Today, we take a look at the trial brief from the 22 women, which lays out the basic allegations to be proved, and we make some assumptions about the language of contract, and highlight the difficulties that are likely ahead for the plaintiffs to make their case.