3 ms·

I have an issue if that remedy comes at the cost of someone or a company that was not directly involved in the case. In this case Visa was providing a service

I have an issue if that remedy comes at the cost of someone or a company that was not directly involved in the case. In this case Visa was providing a service with little to no knowledge of the internal workings of PornHub. Like I originally said. Would you still be saying this if they were attempting to sue the banks? The datacenters? The ISPs? The manufactures of the machines in the datacenter? If visa is liable for this so are all of those which does not make any sense. They are already suing pornhub in this case. I don't see the value or reasoning that Visa has any liability here. To me her getting a financial remedy quicker is not a valid reason to sue a different party.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> In this case Visa was providing a service with little to no knowledge of the internal workings of PornHub. Why should their level of knowledge of the internal workings of MindGeek be relevant, if they had knowledge of and actively chose to profit from the illegal activity at issue? > Would you still be saying this if they were attempting to sue the banks? The datacenters? The ISPs? The manufactures of the machines in the datacenter? Yes, I would say the same. Whether they can prove the requisite level of knowledge is an issue for trial, but they have certainly stated a claim that is sufficient, and would be sufficient mutatis mutandis against any of the others. > If visa is liable for this so are all of those which does not make any sense. No, Visa having actual knowledge of the illegal conduct and actively choosing to profit from it does not imply that all of those had the same knowledge and made the same choice. And, again, this isn't a decision that Visa is liable, but that the plaintiff has stated a claim under which Visa would be liable if the claim is proven, and part of proving that is proving Visa’s knowledge. > They are already suing pornhub in this case. I don't see the value or reasoning that Visa has any liability here. Whether either has liability is yet to be determined; this isn't a decision on liability but on whether the allegations made by the plaintiff if proven—which include Visa’s actual knowledge and active decision to profit from MindGeek’s distribution of illegal content—would constitute a violation of the law for which a remedy is available against the defendants. > To me her getting a financial remedy quicker is not a valid reason to sue a different party. Not sure why this strawman is raised here.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> In this case Visa was providing a service with little to no knowledge of the internal workings of PornHub. Why should their level of knowledge of the internal workings of MindGeek be relevant, if they had knowledge of and actively chose to profit from the illegal activity at issue? > Would you still be saying this if they were attempting to sue the banks? The datacenters? The ISPs? The manufactures of the machines in the datacenter? Yes, I would say the same. Whether they can prove the requisite level of knowledge is an issue for trial, but they have certainly stated a claim that is sufficient, and would be sufficient mutatis mutandis against any of the others. > If visa is liable for this so are all of those which does not make any sense. No, Visa having actual knowledge of the illegal conduct and actively choosing to profit from it does not imply that all of those had the same knowledge and made the same choice. And, again, this isn't a decision that Visa is liable, but that the plaintiff has stated a claim under which Visa would be liable if the claim is proven, and part of proving that is proving Visa’s knowledge. > They are already suing pornhub in this case. I don't see the value or reasoning that Visa has any liability here. Whether either has liability is yet to be determined; this isn't a decision on liability but on whether the allegations made by the plaintiff if proven—which include Visa’s actual knowledge and active decision to profit from MindGeek’s distribution of illegal content—would constitute a violation of the law for which a remedy is available against the defendants. > To me her getting a financial remedy quicker is not a valid reason to sue a different party. Not sure why this strawman is raised here.