I get the general sensation that it doesn't make sense to hold Visa responsible for something that sounds more of a pornhub issue, but the way I read this: it's

I get the general sensation that it doesn't make sense to hold Visa responsible for something that sounds more of a pornhub issue, but the way I read this: it's just a pre-trial to look into Visa's request to be removed from the trial itself. They haven't been condemned. The judge's justification is that they were part of the financial transaction (albeit through advertising), and therefore there is a chance they could have a say. Substitute YouPorn by some shady dark web childporn website, and having Visa accept to serve them makes them accomplice. Substitute with Amazon and this is slightly harder to wager for some reason. I think there's a greyscale limit between both, and PornHub is not too far from it since there is a fair expectation of getting illicit content, and remuneration from it. It's not ridiculous for a payment processor to be in that lawsuit, to understand if the checks and balances they should exert on their customers' business should be higher (my personal opinion is no, but I see that this should be adjudicated)