LOS ANGELES—A federal judge dismissed some claims of trafficking and profiting from such illegal activity that were filed against the firm Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub, and Visa, the multinational credit card processing giant, per a pair of orders issued on Monday.
The plaintiff in this particular case is a woman named Serena Fleites, the subject of the controversial New York Times opinion column by contributor Nicholas Kristof called “The Children of Pornhub.” In his column, Kristof used Fleites as a framing device to justify claims that Pornhub was a hotbed for illegal content, including child sexual abuse material. Fleites disclosed to Kristof and in the ensuing lawsuit against Aylo and Visa that she was victimized in her early teen years.
U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the Central District of California heard the lawsuit on behalf of Fleites, who is represented by former Brown Rudnick lawyers Michael Bowe and Lauren Tabaksblat of Brithem LLP, and David Stein of Olson Sten LLP. Bowe was featured in the Netflix original documentary Money Shot: The Pornhub Story as a balancing voice, suing the adult entertainment industry powerhouse platform. He also served as a defense attorney at one point for U.S. President Donald Trump. Bowe and Tabaksblat recently announced the launch of Brithem LLP as a boutique law firm specializing in “impact litigation” for various civil litigation cases.
Hsu ruled yesterday that companies Fleites accused of profiting from her exploitation and being complicit in her trafficking as a young teenager were not liable on most claims initially filed when she sued several years ago. For example, Fleites’ attorneys wanted to hold Visa accountable for credit card payment processing over its international network in relation to purchases made on platforms owned by Aylo, which was then known as MindGeek.
Hsu dismissed most of her claims against Visa without prejudice, citing civil conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Hsu ruled that civil conspiracy with Aylo “cannot be triggered solely by knowledge and inertia; it requires affirmative alignment with the venture’s unlawful purpose.”
“There are no allegations of internal Visa communications, decision-making, or admissions reflecting an understanding of MindGeek’s unlawful objectives,” Hsu ruled. “Instead, the allegations suggest that Visa continued a pre-existing business relationship in the face of controversy.”
Hsu refused to dismiss some claims against MindGeek (Aylo), including its alleged violations of the Communications Decency Act, Law360.com reports.
Hsu wrote, “While the court agrees that plaintiff’s pleadings as to MindGeek’s involvement in the videos as specific to her leave more to be desired, the court finds that these allegations paired with the general allegations found in the rest of the … [complaint] … detailing MindGeek’s tools that are not neutral in nature but rather encourage criminality are sufficient at this stage of the litigation when all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of [the] plaintiff.”
Additionally, Hsu dismissed claims that Fleites violated the TVPRA based on concerns of direct liability.
This means that Hsu was not convinced that Aylo was not a direct actor seeking to benefit from a human trafficking venture. Hsu permitted her claim, suing for the beneficiary liability to survive, which is basically defined as a beneficiary of TVRPA restitution funds for trafficking victims by simply surviving the death of the trafficker.
Hsu also left in place Fleites’ claims against Aylo of receipt, distribution or transportation of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors. He also dismissed a conspiracy to violate the TVPRA claims between Visa and Aylo.
A spokesperson for Aylo declined to comment on the current status of the case, except for the following: “Out of respect for the integrity of court proceedings, our policy is not to comment on ongoing litigation. We look forward to the facts being fully and fairly aired in that forum.”
