Judge Rules Visa Can Be Sued for Monetizing Child Sexual Abuse on Pornhub
vice.com
vice.com
Basically, Fleites is alleging that Mindgeek was monetizing child pornography, and that Visa was aware, forming a civil conspiracy. At this point in the trial, they aren't determining the veracity of the allegations, just whether Fleites has standing to sue if the allegations are true (i.e. they are assumed to be true at this point).
Fleites is saying that Visa harmed her by providing monetization to Mindgeek, giving her standing to sue Visa. Visa tried to escape liability by claiming that the harm can't be traced to them. They claim that all the harm was caused by Mindgeek and the uploader, and thus that Fleites has no standing to even attempt to sue them.
The judge ruled that if Visa was aware of the child pornography problems and continued to provide services, they did knowingly harm Fleites, and she has standing to sue.
That seems reasonable to me. Under the assumption the allegations are true, Visa provided a means for Mindgeek to convert child pornography into money, creating an economic incentive for Mindgeek to continue hosting such content, which led to the harm inflicted on Fleites.
It all hinges on whether Visa was aware of the problems or not, but this isn't the stage of the trial where that is determined. I would venture to guess that it will fall apart when it comes to determining the veracity of the claims. I'd be surprised if Visa was aware of the issues, and even more surprised if they wrote it down somewhere it could be subpoenaed. Visa can't raise that point right now though, so they tried to argue against standing since that's what they're allowed to raise at the moment.
1: https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...
To the point, that lawsuit would fail for the same reason as my hypothetical username one. You lack a cause of action. Ford has not committed a tort, therefore there is no harm to trace back to BoA.
You would have to demonstrate that Ford committed some kind of tort (intentionally designing a car to hit kids, or maybe being recklessly negligent in the design), and that BoA was aware of that tort (not that they could find out if they wanted, but that they actually knew).
I find the opposite crazy; that you can knowingly help someone commit a tort and get off free. Is a junkyard supposed to be able to buy catalytic converters knowing they were stolen? Is a fence supposed to be able to buy jewelry they know is stolen?
Why?
> Why not also sue the landlords of Visa and Mindgeek offices, and the makers of cars their employees drive to work?
I mean, if you were prepared to support the claim that the landlords of the MindGeek offices (for instance) knew about the child porn, and actively chose to profit off of it, which is what is alleged about Visa, that seems perfectly reasonable.
(Will the evidence support that? Who knows, that's what a trial is for—this is just allowing the suit in the front door.)
Presumption of innocence on the other hand would make only the party commissioning the crime liable and that means massively less overhead when economically interacting with others.
With respect to below, I'll respond by editing the current comment as I'm currently at my comment limit:
Presumption of innocence means presuming others innocent unless they are proven, in a court of law, of being guilty. Suggesting that Visa knew Mindgeek was guilty is putting the onus on private actors to ascribe guilt for crimes, and holding them liable if they fail to do so, which leads to their adoption of the presumption of guilt until proven innocent principle underlying so much regulatory restrictions and private sector KYC processes in finance nowadays.
No, it doesn't. There is no novel doctrine here, and the allegation being allowed to proceed to trial is that Visa has actual knowledge of MindGeek’s child porn, actual power to constrain it, and actively chose to facilitate and profit.
This is not a ruling that any of that is true, just that that set of claims properly alleges a wrong which is within the coverage of the justice system. The plaintiff still has to prove all that to win.
(FWIW I don't think a payment processor should be on the hook for what a merchant sells, period.)
The sale/possession of child porn is criminal.
You’re analogy is a bad one because you’re describing a hypothetical 2nd order event.
Regardless of what you think of crypto and it’s incredible power usage this just goes to show that side channel payments are going to be really important. Visa et al are far too powerful. Not to mention the downsides of financial surveillance.
Cash, crypto not using proof of stake, whatever. I’m not smart enough to solve it but I do want to sideskirt more obtuse “rules” that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912763
Todays article is largely a follow-up update to the above HN post.