Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Porn Star?? Not ME !!!

The VERY first thing that you should have done was to file for a injuctionprohibiting the company from using your likeness in conjunction with the videos.

You mentioned that you have filed a suit, are you represented by an attorney?? are yo an attorney??

Also, one of the main issues at trial will be whether or not you can be classified as a "PUBLIC PERSON" If thecourt find that you are, then the standard for damages goes WAY UP and recovery may be VERY difficult.

Finally, cases like this tend to be VERY expensive to litigate.Most attorney's want an hourly fee rather than a contiguent basis, alsothe use of experts are manditory and they can also be very expensive $10,000 - 100,000 depedingon the number and type of experts needed.

As you can see a lot of questions remain, you need to talk to an attorney.

Please feel free to contact me if you need further information.============================================================If applicable to this message: "This transmission does not create an attorney-client relationship. I will not be representing anyone without a written agreement signed by all parties. Answers to questions are for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice in any particular jurisdiction. If you need legal advice for a specific legal problem seek the services of a knowledgable attorney in your area or locale."=============================================================

False endorsement of pornography

I agree with Mr. Dresscher that you should seek an injunction if you haven't already done so. Because you have not, I assume you are not yet represented by an attorney.

I disagree with some other parts of Mr. Drescher's analysis. Most importantly, I don't think being a "public figure" would make much difference in this case, because public figures are, if anything, MORE likely to be able to recover from marketers who fraudulently use their names in advertisements. Public figures have a greatly reduced ability to sue for false statements about their activities in order to encourage a free exchange of ideas in the press, but I don't see that this policy would apply to advertisers who fraudulently claim that a public figure has endorsed their product.

My guess is that you aren't a public figure anyway, and if that is the case this whole point is moot.

I also do not see why this case should be especially costly. Of course, lawsuits in general are expensive. But based on what you have written, I don't see why this case should be dramatically more expensive than most. You might want to talk to your publisher -- who is losing money along with you due to the decreased book sales -- to see whether they will help finance the litigation.

There are a lot of unanswered questions I would need to discuss with you to get a better sense of how to proceed. Your question says it concerns California law. Are you located in California? Is the company that used your name here? An internet case can probably be brought in a number of different jurisdictions, but internret cases often begin with battles over jurisdiction and venue and this information would assist in my analysis.

Also, what is your area of expertise? How do you know that the drop in book sales was attributable to the ad?

Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further.