FTC Takes Down Another Revenge Porn Site
from the an-apparent-impossibility-given-the-lack-of-a-federal-revenge-porn-law dept
There ought to be a law, say many people opposed to revenge porn. And so they craft laws with an eye on prosecution but not so much on the First Amendment, tending to treat collateral damage as acceptable so long as revenge porn site operators are criminally charged. But the proposed laws are more than bad, they're extraneous. Existing laws are still taking down revenge porn purveyors, as we've covered previously at this site.
The FTC has taken down another revenge porn site and secured a judgment against one of its operations, all without having to having to hack away at protected speech or undermine Section 230 immunity. MyEx.com -- a site "dedicated solely to revenge porn" -- has been targeted in an FTC complaint.
According to the complaint, visitors to MyEx.com can rate the videos and pictures they see and post comments about the victims. At various times, the site included victims’ full date of birth, personal email address, telephone number, and links to social media profiles, along with the intimate images.
The FTC alleges that the defendants were aware that many of the individuals did not agree to having their intimate images and personal information posted to MyEx.com. As of December 2017, there were approximately 12,620 entries on the site, according to the complaint.
The complaint [PDF] contains extensive documentation of the site runners' activities, including charging people anywhere from $499 up to $2,800 for removal of pictures and information, as well as the site's operator creating a wholly (and admittedly) fictitious business entity to hide behind.
Defendant Applegate registered the domain MyEx.com through domain name registrar GoDaddy from November 2011 through at least June 2013. He provided GoDaddy the email address shad@myex.com as his contact address.
In May of 2013, GoDaddy informed Defendant Applegate of reports of child exploitation and underage content on MyEx.com. GoDaddy also informed Defendant Applegate that an investigator from an internet-crimes-against-children taskforce and a police detective were attempting to get in touch with the website operators.
Also in May 2013, Defendant Applegate changed the contact name provided to GoDaddy for the MyEx.com website to “Eun Kim” and changed the contact address to Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands, while leaving the contact email address as shad@myex.com for a period of time. After GoDaddy inquired about this change, Defendant Applegate told GoDaddy in a message, “its [sic] not a company it’s a made up name for the address & [sic]; phone number in the Netherlands. The [expletive] domain is in my godaddy [sic] account.” Defendant Applegate then moved MyEx.com to a different registrar, Eurodns. He provided Eurodns the contact name “Eun Kim” and changed MyEx.com to be associated with the fictional business entity, Web Solutions B.V. He provided a contact address of Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands, which was the same address he told GoDaddy that he made up.
This fictitious address was also used to ignore DMCA complaints and other requests for removal of content.
Under the “Contact Us” page, the site stated, “Myex.com has no removals [sic] policy. If you are an adult who has been submitted to this site tough luck [sic].” The page went on to state, “If you have the need to send mail please address it to MyEx.com c/o Web Solutions B.V. Attn Legal Department DMCA Complaints. Websolutions Netherlands, Singel 540 1017 Amsterdam The Netherlands Attn: Legal Department.”
Paid removals were handled in a similarly shady fashion. The site's operators made those seeking content removal wire money to someone named "Shelly Mae Garcia" who supposedly lived in the Philippines. Those who refused to pay the extortion were invited to send snail mail to the fake address in the Netherlands.
The FTC finds the site owners to be in violation of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices by business entities. As is detailed in the complaint, there's no shortage of evident harm created by the site's posting of intimate photos without the consent of those depicted, along with as much personal info (names, addresses, social media accounts) as the site could harvest.
The settlement [PDF] with one of the site's owners, Neil Infante, prohibits him from posting intimate photos without the explicit, written consent of the photo's subject. It also subjects Infante to 20 years of FTC monitoring and a $205,000 fine. (It appears the FTC will only be able to collect $15,000 of this fine. The FTC's press release states the rest of the fine will be suspended as Infante has shown "an inability to pay more.") Infante is also prohibited from charging takedown fees for any content whose removal is requested. The FTC is still seeking to obtain judgments against the other participants in the revenge porn operation and is ordering Infante to turn over as much info as he has on his revenge porn colleagues.
This revenge porn operation is effectively dead. The nonconsensual part of the operation is blocked by the FTC judgment and the inability to charge removal fees pretty eliminates the most profitable revenue stream. It's unclear what the future holds for Neil Infante, but it appears the Republican Senate race in Ohio (Infante's home state) is suddenly in need of a new frontrunner. Perhaps FTC judgment recipient and former revenge porn site operator Craig Brittain could send his colleague a few ideas on to how to MAGA the hell out of the nation as a Senate race bottom-feeder.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, ftc, intermediary liability, revenge porn
Companies: myex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typo?
Should that be "without?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why no prison time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Internet Police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Typo?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even if one were to accept that section 230 protects the site, the person who posts there is not protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Internet Police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
If there's ever been any support from TD fanboys for my view that common law over-arches ALL statute, I've missed it. No matter how often I'm right, I get no respect. No matter how often TD blithely reverses, it never astonishes the fanboys, who seem to have less than two-hour memory. Next time Section 230 comes up, it'll again be regarded as absolute protection that must not be weakened. Even though can take down sites and prosecute despite it.
Indeed, why aren't you kids wailing at attack on 230 and the site's Free Speech? -- Because you DO recognize that there IS over-arching common law, even though lately are numerous comments disparaging it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Internet Police
The timeline doesn't matter, sonny, nor what "technology" has become or follows from now. Your comment doesn't even make sense to a reasonable person. I think you confused it with FCC, for start.
The Federal TRADE Commission came about to deal with the evils that corporations were doing, then, now, and in future, just as the US Constitution was designed to prevent The Rich from easily controlling all. The Constitution is still up-to-date, just needs following: here, that means FTC should take the common good of We The People as its goal, under common law principles -- as appears did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, maybe FTC is becoming active!
Anyway, this is certainly good sign of how an activist gov't should work. Take out the egregious cases, then others don't become egregious.
Next need anti-trust targeting Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook, for start. -- First with missiles. Also good places to try out killer droids, quite apropos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Internet Police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey, maybe FTC is becoming active!
Lizard People vs the Illuminati ... who will win?
Does Scientology really think Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8 and stacked them around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why no prison time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
You still have no point here, and neither techdirt nor anyone else supporting the existence of Section 230 reversed on anything. Why would 230 protect those who run a site as a criminal enterprise? The answer is: It doesn't. But when your personal theory, which is yours, claims that we all just want to support criminals (because, you know, reasons), you have nothing else to make an argument with. All you can do is rinse and repeat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey, maybe FTC is becoming active!
I'm surprised the FTC had enough funding to do it. Uh, activist government? Whatever. But the FTC is the Deep State. OK then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I just found out the site was taken down. It's a damn shame, honestly, was a good way to get back at an ex that royally screwed you over with nonviolently, or if there was no other options. It was a good service I hope to see return in some way or another.
Just another moment of our government imposing their tyranny amongst the people with restrictions on liberty and freedom, and a company not even based on US soil no less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]