4 ms·
This seems to be a pre-trial motion where the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. > MindGeek told the BBC that at this point in the case, the court
by vageli 4y ago
This seems to be a pre-trial motion where the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true.
> MindGeek told the BBC that at this point in the case, the court has not yet ruled on the truth of the allegations, and is required to assume all of the plaintiff's allegations are true and accurate.
With that context it doesn't seem too unusual, as "you can sue most anyone for most anything" is the norm.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoPoint is, even if everything they allege is true, I still think it's ludicrous that the payment processor could be held liable. Mindgeek should definitely be liable, but this is classic "lawyers looking for deep pockets". Why not also have the company that made the camera that recorded the video be liable? Why not the ISP that served the content? Heck, should the Federal Reserve be liable for a crime every time someone pays in cash?
- vageli 4y agoAs the judge put it, a case could potentially be made that Visa knowingly provided the tools to MindGeek while aware of the child exploitation issues and could potentially be complicit. That potential means the case should proceed and be heard on its merits (at least as I understand it).