model mayhem being sued for $10 million

Whilst I think her experience is horrific, I do not see how the website is to blame.
Whilst its possible to block IP address and email addresses to stop trouble makers re joining after being banned its easy to get around by people using proxies.

There is also as mentioned the whole issue of her putting herself in harms way by not following basic safety procedures that I advise any potential model to take when going to a shoot.

1 - take someone with you.. no if's ands or buts.. never go alone.

2 - take or purchase your own drinks and ensure that they are never left uncovered or alone at anytime.. never accept drinks or drugs from those at the shoot.

I dont think the company should be liable for what happened to her, the whole responsibility for that should rest squarely on her rapists and anyone else who directly aided them.
 
I have to agree with Ian, the website cannot be to blame, it is down to individuals to ensure their safety if they meet others from the internet, there are all sorts of weird and dangerous people out there.

Just because it is a website that alot of people trust, there is no reason to throw caution to the wind. For example, I have a fair amount of trust in this forum, I have completed transactions via this forum with strangers without a problem and would be happy to meet members of this forum in public. However, if someone was to PM me asking me to join them at a photoshoot at a private location, I would be extremely apprehensive and cautious about it. I won't know the individual personally, hence no reason to fully trust them.

I think the $10 mil in damages seems quite excessive and more like an attempt to cash in rather than actually cover damages. It seems fairly steep to cover damages, loss of earnings and medical expenses, however that may just be me. $1 - $2 mil I think would be far more reasonable, predominantly for compensation from the ordeal, yes it will have a gigantic negative effect on the girls life in ways I cannot possibly imagine, but a couple of million would be enough to set her up comfortably for life or to live on for a very long time if she was careful.

Realistically, I think she should be seeking compensation from the perpertrators, however I don't imagine they will have millions available to be sued for easily...but the website would, so the website and its owners have now become the target to recompense her for the crimes committed. I'm not saying that the whole situation should be brushed under a rug like it was nothing, it is a very serious crime, however I think the court should take a step back and re-evaluate what is happening here before passing judgement, else risk forcing an otherwise innocent party to compensate a victim for a crime they were not directly involved in.

To put it another way, I am out and about near my home, a man attacks and mugs me, leaving me severely injured requiring urgent medical attention. Upon recovery, I find out the local police force knew about this individual, his violent history and string of serious criminal offenses, and that he was living in my area. How far would I get if I tried to claim compensation for the police not informing and warning me of this individual? I know there is a chance that I could come across an individual like that in day to day life, but while out and about, my safety, surely, is my responsibility.

Well, there are my opinions, take them or leave them as you will, I'm not looking to offend or start arguments here :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
There are some truly horrible people in the world.

However the first thing that comes to my mind was where was this persons chaperone?
Click to expand...

From what I can tell of the trial they were cast for porn movies.

Stupidity not withstanding professional models do not need chaperones. In fact I'll not shoot anyone that has one.
 
Last edited:
iancandler said:
I dont think the company should be liable for what happened to her, the whole responsibility for that should rest squarely on her rapists and anyone else who directly aided them.
Click to expand...

And you don`t think Model Mayhem directly aided them by not publishing the fact that they knew that this was going on.
 
djinn said:
And you don`t think Model Mayhem directly aided them by not publishing the fact that they knew that this was going on.
Click to expand...

^This^

MM are being prosecuted for not putting up a simple message saying, "Members may be aware of.. .. we advise all members to take suitable precautions.. public place.. chaperone..". The pair were convicted in 2007 of assaulting five women that they arranged to meet via MM. I think this should have been worth at least an update and revision of security guidelines with a you-must-read-this pop-up. The actions of the new owners (as described in the report) implies that they were expecting for prosecutions like this.

Professional models working with professional photographers may not need chaperones. But MM isn't restricted to just professionals (on either side). And you'd be foolish to answer any advert and meet someone you don't know, in a place you don't know, without having someone along. And if you're the model and the photographer gets prissy about it, walk away.
 
faddius said:
I have to agree with Ian, the website cannot be to blame, it is down to individuals to ensure their safety if they meet others from the internet, there are all sorts of weird and dangerous people out there.
Click to expand...


Despite the fact that the website knew that these two individuals had been arrested for such crimes :nono: Or even maybe that those crimes were commited on women they had previously met through MM:shake:

faddius said:
I think the $10 mil in damages seems quite excessive and more like an attempt to cash in rather than actually cover damages. It seems fairly steep to cover damages, loss of earnings and medical expenses, however that may just be me. $1 - $2 mil I think would be far more reasonable, predominantly for compensation from the ordeal, yes it will have a gigantic negative effect on the girls life in ways I cannot possibly imagine, but a couple of million would be enough to set her up comfortably for life or to live on for a very long time if she was careful.
Click to expand...
And there speaks someone has been been drugged and seriously sexually assaulted by two men, I think not. Is it any surprise the rape conviction in this country is so low.

She was naive to go alone to such a session, doesn't make her culpable though.

Steve
 
Last edited:
There are two issues here. Should Internet Brand Inc (doing business as Model Mayhem) be held liable, and the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff states that she had an account with Model Mayhem and used them to advertise her services to clients. I expect that's common cause, and no-one is going to argue about it. She also alleges that Model Mayhem were well aware that the perpetrators were using their website to target potential victims, and suppressed this knowledge and/or failed to warn her about the risk. That's the crux of the matter and, if it's true, it's pretty damning.

Most plaintiffs pursue compensatory and punitive damages - which are less common in the UK - in these cases. Compensatory damages are usually for shock, pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of present and future earnings; and the plaintiff has to quantify these to the court's satisfaction. Punitive damages are just that, damages which can be awarded on a scale to punish the defendant for a wrongful act or omission which is tantamount to gross negligence or culpability. Most of the very large awards in the US fall into this category, and a lot of them are reduced on appeal.

I imagine the $10 million is just a figure her attorney's have put on the table to encourage the defendants to settle for a lesser, negotiated, sum. The attorneys are probably working on a contingency basis too, so their fees and the costs of bringing the case have to be deducted from the settlement, but a lot of juries take this into account.
 
faddius said:
I think the $10 mil in damages seems quite excessive and more like an attempt to cash in rather than actually cover damages. It seems fairly steep to cover damages, loss of earnings and medical expenses, however that may just be me. $1 - $2 mil I think would be far more reasonable, predominantly for compensation from the ordeal, yes it will have a gigantic negative effect on the girls life in ways I cannot possibly imagine, but a couple of million would be enough to set her up comfortably for life or to live on for a very long time if she was careful.
Click to expand...

I love the concept of a MAN sitting at his computer giving a rough estimate how much money a women deserves for being raped.

Seems fairly steep to cover damages? Have you been drugged, raped, and filmed by a couple of men recently?
 
Something else to consider is the impact that this will have if the case is upheld, MM and other sites may need to vet photographers and other users before allowing them to register and advertise thier services. Otherwise they may deem the risk is too great of this happening again if they can't confirm that a new user is not Callum or Flanders or some other rapist that they know about.
 
Hi folks,

this thread has been reported as one that's likely to understandably stir up some fairly strong emothions. Can everyone keep things as objective as possible and not let it become too heated please :)
 
Whilst I feel terribly sorry for the 'Girls' involved I do not see why all the blame should be down to Internet Brands Inc or Model Mayhem. I would be pretty sure these two people were banned from the site when the first issue arose in 2007, but unless everyone using these sites arre vetted or everyone using them takes an honesty pill there's not much else they can do to stopo the pair from rejoining under false names etc.

Also whilst it's true, they should of put up a warning on the site, be honest with yourselves and admit that you don't read every popup that comes up, or read all the T&C's when signing up. How many members on here have read ALL the T&C's for this site, let alone all the model sites.

Practicing common sense is all important when using any such web site. How many times have we seen about kids getting groomed by 'so called' similar aged people. If some people think they can get away with it they will try. I'd be quite happy to see these men imprisoned for life, but it's their fault, what they did was their actions and not a websites action.If someone is going to meet a stranger/s for any reason, not just modelling, they should let people know where they are going, and take a chaperone if they don't know the photographer, especially on the first appointment.
 
POAH said:
From what I can tell of the trial they were cast for porn movies.

Stupidity not withstanding professional models do not need chaperones. In fact I'll not shoot anyone that has one.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest why would you not shoot someone who has a chaperone. or as I like to think "free assistant!" :D
 
Last edited:
modchild said:
Whilst I feel terribly sorry for the 'Girls' involved I do not see why all the blame should be down to Internet Brands Inc or Model Mayhem. I would be pretty sure these two people were banned from the site when the first issue arose in 2007, but unless everyone using these sites arre vetted or everyone using them takes an honesty pill there's not much else they can do to stopo the pair from rejoining under false names etc.

Also whilst it's true, they should of put up a warning on the site, be honest with yourselves and admit that you don't read every popup that comes up, or read all the T&C's when signing up. How many members on here have read ALL the T&C's for this site, let alone all the model sites.

Practicing common sense is all important when using any such web site. How many times have we seen about kids getting groomed by 'so called' similar aged people. If some people think they can get away with it they will try. I'd be quite happy to see these men imprisoned for life, but it's their fault, what they did was their actions and not a websites action.If someone is going to meet a stranger/s for any reason, not just modelling, they should let people know where they are going, and take a chaperone if they don't know the photographer, especially on the first appointment.
Click to expand...

The perpetrators were sentenced to life imprisonment in February, but that doesn't have any direct bearing on the civil action.

It's a 'deeper pockets' case, without any doubt. The defendants have money and assets, and may well be backstopped by insurance too. Taking the perpetrators to court would probably be pointless.

I think this revolves around the allegation that the defendants not only knew about the risk and suppressed the information, but also failed to warn the models. The court might take the view that there was a duty to warn, even if they only posted it on the website or sent out a mail to all the models registered with them. It would be easy enough to surmise that they were more concerned about the commercial impact this might have than the models' safety, but that will be up to the court to decide.

Perhaps the plaintiff should have taken more precautions, but that's another matter and doesn't excuse the defendants. She certainly doesn't seem to have acted with reckless disregard for own safety.
 
Last edited:
Surely, if an organisation knows that using their service presents a risk, and that certain precautions should be taken to mitigate that risk, then they DO have a duty of care to at the very least provide a "keep yourself safe" guide?

I agree the site can do little to prevent a determined predator from registering, that the girls has a responsibility to behave sensibly (though why should she behave like a victim; she has a right to expect men NOT to do this sort of stuff), and that the damages claimed seem ridiculous, but I do think the site appears to have some responsibility too.
 
It's not clear from the linked article, had either of these men been convicted of a crime in relation to any of the allegations from other MM members prior to the incident involving Jane Doe 14?

If not I don't see how MM could warn potential models that these men were alleged rapists, without leaving itself wide open to a huge lawsuit for defamation...
 
True, but they could publish a guide, containing sensible precautions, telling people how to keep themselves safe.

They could also publish a warning regarding the type of con they were aware of, without naming anyone. I can see why, commercially they'd not want to, but the fact is that they could have done.
 
faddius said:
I have to agree with Ian, the website cannot be to blame, it is down to individuals to ensure their safety if they meet others from the internet, there are all sorts of weird and dangerous people out there.
Click to expand...

Whilst the concept is of course sensible, do not forget that, in all honesty it comes down to who can convince the jury better.

Right or wrong particularly in American courts is not really the important factor.
 
stu_the_flat said:
Just out of interest why would you not shoot someone who has a chaperone. or as I like to think "free assistant!" :D
Click to expand...

Cause I've found them to be a huge distraction in the past.
 
POAH said:
Stupidity not withstanding professional models do not need chaperones. In fact I'll not shoot anyone that has one.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand where you are coming from here, particularly in this day and age, where a lot of people, particularly young women have to be so careful. This is just the kind of situation where someone does need a chaperone, meeting people who she knows little about, could put her at risk (as this case has shown) on a number of levels.
 
Southdowns said:
True, but they could publish a guide, containing sensible precautions, telling people how to keep themselves safe.

They could also publish a warning regarding the type of con they were aware of, without naming anyone. I can see why, commercially they'd not want to, but the fact is that they could have done.
Click to expand...

Being this is America we're talking about it's probably safer (in a legal sense) for MM to say nothing than to offer any sort of advice regarding such matters at all, similar to the way that Ebay have always been very reluctant to warn members of the scams being perpetrated on their website.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Being this is America we're talking about it's probably safer (in a legal sense) for MM to say nothing than to offer any sort of advice regarding such matters at all, similar to the way that Ebay have always been very reluctant to warn members of the scams being perpetrated on their website.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree; damned if you do, damned if you don't. I bet they're wishing they had done now though.
 
If I remember correctly Model Mayhem has no vetting criteria for who it allows to use its site. Purestorm does and it's interesting to note that many members of this forum have slated Purestorm for having an over zealous attitude to who it allows on its site, maybe this thread will help explain why.
Ironically the Purestorm critics have then gone on to say that Model Mayhem is the more professional site!
 
Agreed. It might go hard for them though, if the plaintiff is able to show that they not only knew about the risk, but actually suppressed the information.
 
In my view the current owner of MM are at fault here.

By there own actions, suing the previous owners for non disclosure of the potential for lawsuits because of the actions of the 2 men in question due to their earlier activities in 2007, they have admitted that they knew there was a risk to women on MM and add to that they knew the demographic of the women at a higher risk and they stood by and did nothing. seemingly putting commercial gain ahead of their user's safety.

Yes, the claim may seem excessive at first glance. Once the complete article has been read though maybe not so excessive. What happened to the woman appears to be barbaric, the fact both men received life imprisonment speaks for itself.

If this case goes against MM then I would expect a lot more cases being lodged and who knows perhaps that decision to put commercial gain first may back fire on them. But not before wrecking numerous women's lives first.

Paul.
 
faddius said:
To put it another way, I am out and about near my home, a man attacks and mugs me, leaving me severely injured requiring urgent medical attention. Upon recovery, I find out the local police force knew about this individual, his violent history and string of serious criminal offenses, and that he was living in my area. How far would I get if I tried to claim compensation for the police not informing and warning me of this individual? I know there is a chance that I could come across an individual like that in day to day life, but while out and about, my safety, surely, is my responsibility.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the Police are not arranging for you to meet with your mugger. If they were, and knew about the risk, would you not expect them to warn you or keep you safe in some way, even if the meeting was at your request?

I think if you're going to arrange for pretty young girls to meet men they don't know, and know that some of those men are predators, even if you don't know or can't disclose which ones, you have a pretty clear duty of care, morally even if not legally. I'd think that principal has to be pretty unquestionable surely, though the degree to which the girl was naive, what the site actually did know, and what it's possible for a commercial organisation to actually do about it are less clear.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
So it's just you and some young lassie,who you've never met before, in a state of undress?
Click to expand...

13thduke.jpg
"Me alone, with a young lady in a state of undress. With my reputation..." :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top