SAN DIEGO — Two additional models have filed legal claims against the operators of GirlsDoPorn.com.
The two models now join 14 others who previously alleged they were exploited after answering Craigslist ads and shooting porn for the adult site.
Each of the 16 models allege that site operators lied about their distribution plans and later posted their names online despite having promised them anonymity.
The 16 women — ranging from age 18-22 — individually claim they answered ads posted on Craigslist.org flew to San Diego from their hometowns in the U.S. and Canada for boy/girl assignments that averaged about $2,000 to $5,000 for each shoot. The performances took place at some of the swankiest hotels in San Diego.
After the shoots, each of the performers found their videos posted on GirlsDoPorn.com website despite promises that the DVDs would only be distributed overseas and for private use, according to the suits.
The models said in the suits that their real identities and contact information were leaked onto sites like PornWikiLeaks.com for families and friends to see.
In the two suits, the models make allegations of intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, false promise, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, misappropriation of name and likeness, negligence and breach of contract, among other allegations.
The models are seeking $500,000 a piece in damages, along with punitive damages and attorney’s fees, from the San Diego-based adult business.
A trial date was previously set for July 13 in the first case involving the 14 models; the second case involving the additional two plaintiffs, however, could derail those plans if the cases are consolidated.
“The case is stalled in the discovery phase which is not surprising given the number of parties involved,” Sadock told XBIZ. “To help break the discovery logjam, the court appointed a former judge to referee the discovery disputes.
“The merits of the case have not been reached, nor do we expect them to be until trial.”
Attorney Robert Holm, whose law firm represents each of the plaintiffs, did not respond for XBIZ comment by post time.