The headline is somewhat misleading. If you read the ruling [1], especially around the Standing, it makes more sense. Basically, Fleites is alleging that Mind

The headline is somewhat misleading. If you read the ruling [1], especially around the Standing, it makes more sense. 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/2022/07/031138281455.pdf https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...