Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Courts

Federal Judge Says Visa Knowingly Facilitated Pornhub's Monetization of Child Porn (variety.com) 289

Variety reports: In a setback for Visa in a case alleging the payment processor is liable for the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek, a federal judge ruled that it was reasonable to conclude that Visa knowingly facilitated the criminal activity.

On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa's motion to dismiss the claim it violated California's Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn....

In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff "adequately alleged" that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, "Visa knew that MindGeek's websites were teeming with monetized child porn"; that there was a "criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa's] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn"; and that "the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn" by "knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime."

"When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek's monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges," Carney wrote.

From the judge's ruling:

"At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa's state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Judge Says Visa Knowingly Facilitated Pornhub's Monetization of Child Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by evanh ( 627108 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @02:51AM (#62751158)

    is a legal register, maintained by others, presumably governments, listing all those entities it is to ban. Therefore never having to make any such calls itself.

    • On the other hand, making it a legal requirement for them to maintain these lists in-house would be a very large hurdle to jump for anyone who wants to get into the payment processor business, which would be a great thing for the existing providers.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Now I don't particularly like visa, but I like the trend (and American passtime) to sue everyone and everything for whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.

    Here, in particular, we see that financial processors get sued for their clients' doings, as if they were complicit. They're service companies, they provide services. Demanding they also make doubleplusextragood proof positive sure that their clients are not in any way possible ever liable for anything bad, like here,

    • This flies in the face of conspiracy law.

      A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds" rather than some "guilt by association", the judge is purposefully twisting the legal claims to reach his desired result.

      • A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds"

        it's more complicated than that [ucdavis.edu]

      • This flies in the face of conspiracy law.

        A criminal conspiracy requires a "meeting of the minds" rather than some "guilt by association", the judge is purposefully twisting the legal claims to reach his desired result.

        So what's in it for the judge to influence the case?

    • by Barrillel ( 6574794 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @07:18AM (#62751534)

      Now I don't particularly like visa, but I like the trend (and American passtime) to sue everyone and everything for whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.

      Just as an FYI, the hot coffee incident was not a frivolous lawsuit. The lady got 3rd degree burns and required skin grafts because the coffee was served at about 180–190 F. Unlike the commonly held belief, she was a passenger, and the vehicle was parked. She also didn't sue off the bat, she just wanted McDonalds to cover the costs of her medical bills and the loss of income but McDonalds low-balled her and she was forced to levy a lawsuit at them.

      McDonalds also had documents indicating there were several other incidents but it wasn't frequent enough to have them change their requirements. The franchise requirement to keep the coffee held at 180-190 F at serving was changed after McDonalds lost the lawsuit.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @09:21AM (#62751862)

      > whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee")

      If that is a reference to the famous McDonald's Hot Coffee Case [wikipedia.org] you are completely ignorant of the facts: [caoc.org]

      * Liebeck's case was far from an isolated event. McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

      * Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial.

      * When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial; McDonald's refused both.

      * The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries (McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault), reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. The jury's punitive damages award made headlines -- upset by McDonald's unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days' worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain, about $1.35 million per day.

      * McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.

      * McDonald's admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then-required temperature -- McDonald's operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

      * McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

      Emphasis added.

    • down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") even less.

      You should read the details of that case. McDonalds deserved everything they got on that one. (It was one of the major items we dug into detail during a business ethics course I took). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Tell you what's gonna happen: EMV will not make the same mistake twice, and will start refusing processing payments to everybody whose business isn't as squeaky clean as a Ritz bidet.

    I'm willing to bet a lot of perfectly innocuous businesses will soon be unable to accept payments, and won't have any alternative sources of payment to turn to, since EMV is a monopoly.

    This is one use case where cryptocurrency could have saved us from the evil clutches of Visa / Mastercard / Amex. Alas, it's dodgy as fuck, and

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @04:18AM (#62751286)

    by not prosecuring a child molester he didn't know about.

    Because Visa very likely had no effin' clue what Pornhub did or didn't do. Because they have no reason to. They are handling money. Nothing else. You want to prosecute banks for storing money from drug trades? Or how about prosecuting Smith&Wesson for making guns used in a murder?

    • If a weapons maker advocates for weaker background checks or actively encourages paranoia, then they're facilitating and should indeed be prosecuted for facilitating.

      At least, until a strong, stable, rational federal government exists and law enforcement officials are selected by merit rather than elected by voters on the strength of personal wealth, personal glory and violent retribution.

      Since the majority want a small, powerless, irresponsible government, all law enforcement must be by corporations if it'

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @06:56AM (#62751480)

      It is indeed exceptionally unlikely VISA in any meaningful way knew they were involved in something like this. If they had, they would have acted immediately, because they must and they know it. Now, that said, VISA doubtlessly gets a ton of messages every day claiming whatever evil thing the sender imagines is going on at VISA, at companies using VISA and in the same Universe VISA is in. They will basically ignore all of them because there is no way to separate the ton of lies from the possible few genuine complaints. The way to do this is always the same: Make a complaint to the police. The police will verify this and then _they_ will pass it onwards. This also comes with the apparently little known fact that making a false complaint to the police typically is a crime...

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Some of the victims had their lawyers write to Visa. Ignore lawyer's letters at your peril.

        Can you imagine if this was actually a defence? Oh sorry, we are too large to read all the mail we get, so can't be held liable for ignoring any of it. What, do you expect us to spend time googling this lawyer to make sure they are real? Come on, that's going straight in the recycling.

    • FYI, They try this on a regular basis. Don't believe me? Go ask Twitter or Facebook how often they get sued when some nutjob makes a post on their site before committing a mass shooting. Hell terrorist victims have tried it too.

      TL;DR: Everyone wants someone to blame and face the music for a tragedy, but often the most (and only) viable targets are scapegoats.
  • I do not believe it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @07:13AM (#62751522)

    The complaint is apparently that porn starring an 13 year old was seen millions of times on youporn. Now, unless that 13 year old looks at least to be around 18 in that video, there is basically no way for this to happen. The very first people seeing this should have reported it and that should have lead to removal. Now, I am _not_ going to search for this material, but something is way off here. That VISA now gets accused points to some entirely different agenda.

    • Here's the details. https://www.thestar.com/politi... [thestar.com]

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      The consumers of the content aren't generally going out of their way to police what they see unless it's impossible not to notice.

      I'd also imagine they think the title is lying, like titles of these almost always lie. Because *surely* no one would be stupid enough to post on a website *they* would visit an actual illegal video and label as such, so *obviously* it's just a 'young-looking' model and they are trying to click-bait by lying about it as being illegal.

      I think also the allegation is that while the

    • People are not very good at recognizing the age of other people - see the recent case of an adult who was initially refused a drink on a plane because they thought she was a child.

      I have not seen, and don't plan to look for the video in question, but was it obvious the actor was underage?

      I do understand people not reporting it. Anyone who has seen it may have a cache of the video on their computer. Reporting it would be admitting to possession of child porn. Someone would have to be crazy to take th
  • Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by Angry Coward ( 6165972 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @07:22AM (#62751542)
    The article headline and the slashdot summery are very misleading if taken at face value. This is a ruling on a motion for summary judgement, not any sort of substantial finding against visa, pornhub or anyone else. In the us legal system when ruling on this sort of motion the judge treats all well pled allegations as if they are true. This is because there hasn't been any discovery or chance for both sides to examine and submit actual evidence to prove or disprove those allegations. It is difficult to get a suit dismissed at this stage because it is examined from the prospective of "If everything the plaintiff says is true, could a reasonable judge or jury find for them." You would only see a ruling against the plaintiff at this stage if their they failed to allege something that could be sued for in the complaint or the case was so transparently meritless, based solely on the word of the filing party, that the judge concluded no reasonable person could find for them or a specific law prohibited recover on the grounds alleged. Reading the actual court filing confirms that this is what happened. Most of the claims in the lawsuit are allowed to procede, as they could have merit if everything the plaintiff says is true and discovery provides facts to prove this. The plantiff is also ordered to amend some claims to make them more specific, a few claims are not ruled on as there is overlap with another motion and once claim is dismissed.
    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      This seems to be spot on, though my understanding is incomplete.

      A scenario that might have led up to a ruling in favor of Visa in this case:
      -The plaintiff says that Visa should just be on the hook regardless, without making any claim that Visa actually had reason to know anything at the time (no reports, no investigation, perhaps alleging that some 'common sense' could be used to know an internet porn site would have illegal content)
      In such a case, the plaintiff alleged something that isn't illegal. It's un

  • California's Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn

    So child pornography is unfair competition. Nothing else? I guess they wouldn't want silly little things like human rights & safety get in the way of business. It's interesting to see where their priorities & values lie.

  • I do not think it should be the responsibility of the Visa to address such issues. We pay a bajillion in taxes, tons of it on law enforcement. It is the responsibility of those government agencies to address criminal activities.

    Perhaps we should end the war on drugs so that law enforcement can focus on far more important areas such as child trafficking.

  • Shut them all down. Jail the C-level officers

  • A rep for MindGeek provided this statement: âoeAt this point in the case, the court has not yet ruled on the veracity of the allegations, and is required to assume all of the plaintiffâ(TM)s allegations are true and accurate. When the court can actually consider the facts, we are confident the plaintiffâ(TM)s claims will be dismissed for lack of merit.

    In other words, the Judge said if all that BS you're shoveling is true, then you would have a case, so we will have trial to find out just how full of it you are.

    So they first have to prove Pornhub was facilitating child porn, and then that VISA knew that Pornhub was facilitating child porn, and then, there is a case.
    Good luck with that, let me know how it goes for you.

  • by itzdandy ( 183397 ) on Monday August 01, 2022 @10:31AM (#62752116) Homepage

    I would argue that VISA has no role in the activities of businesses that have all the appropriate financials in order ie bank accounts, d&b numbers, etc, and that until there has been a conviction they should without any opinion. If pornhub/mindgeek actually were found to be monetizing child pornography then Visa should stop. In other words, I think it's completely inappropriate to expect Visa to be the detectives, cops, judge, jury, and executioner and that they should leave this entirely to actual law enforcement.

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...