In 2009, RedTube.com owner Bright Imperial Ltd. of Hong Kong was sued for causing “many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites.” The plaintiff, Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, alleged that RedTube was in violation of California's Unfair Practices Act.
Cammarata claimed that by accepting payments for advertising and streaming porn videos for free, RedTube has given itself an unfair advantage over other porn companies. And he almost got away with it, too, until a California court of appeals got their hands on the case.
The appeals court dismissed the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit, which means, basically, that Cammarata's suit was designed to impede free speech.
In its conclusion, the court wrote, “If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after RedTube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright.”
SexIs magazine RSS Feed
Cammarata claimed that by accepting payments for advertising and streaming porn videos for free, RedTube has given itself an unfair advantage over other porn companies. And he almost got away with it, too, until a California court of appeals got their hands on the case.
The appeals court dismissed the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit, which means, basically, that Cammarata's suit was designed to impede free speech.
In its conclusion, the court wrote, “If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after RedTube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright.”
SexIs magazine RSS Feed
Here's another SLAPP lawsuit: [https://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/amway-lawsuit-update-dont-mess-with.html]