A jury ruled in favor of a Texas woman who said her ex-boyfriend had psychologically and sexually abused her by sharing intimate images of her online without her consent.
A Texas woman was awarded $1.2 billion in damages last week after she sued her former boyfriend and accused him of sending intimate images of her to her family, friends and co-workers from fake online accounts.
The woman, who is identified only by the initials D.L. in court documents, sued her former boyfriend, Marques Jamal Jackson, claiming he had psychologically and sexually abused her by distributing so-called revenge porn, a term for sexually explicit photos or videos of someone that are shared without consent.
The couple started dating in 2016 and were living together in Chicago in early 2020 when they began a “long and drawn-out break up,” according to the lawsuit. D.L. temporarily moved to her mother’s house in Texas and Mr. Jackson began accessing the security system there to spy on her, the lawsuit said.
In October 2021, the couple officially ended their relationship and D.L. told Mr. Jackson that she no longer wanted him to have access to what the lawsuit described as “visual intimate material” of her that she had allowed him to have while they were a couple.
Instead, he posted the images on several social media platforms and websites, including a pornographic website, and in a publicly accessible folder on the online file-sharing service Dropbox, the lawsuit said. He identified her in the material, using her name and address, and images of her face. He created fake social media pages and email accounts to share the material with her family, friends and co-workers, including by sending them a link to the Dropbox folder. On the social media pages where he had posted the images, he tagged accounts for her employer and for her personal gym.
The lawsuit says that this was still happening days before the complaint was filed in April 2022.
Mr. Jackson also used D.L.’s personal bank account to pay his rent, harassed her with calls and text messages from masked numbers, and told her loan officer that she had submitted a fraudulent loan application, the lawsuit said.
In a March 2022 email to D.L. cited in the lawsuit, Mr. Jackson said, “You will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet.”
Mr. Jackson could not be reached for comment. It was not clear if he had a lawyer.
He also did not appear in court on Wednesday, when a jury in Houston ordered him to pay $200 million for past and future mental anguish and $1 billion in punitive damages.
Man fuck these comments. He explicitly said he wanted to ruin the rest of her life. He intentionally posted them with her full name and address, endangering her. And to ruin her chance at getting/keeping a job. Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life, at least there's a cap on UNLIKE WHAT HE TRIED TO DO TO HER!
Most of the disgusting comments are at least being criticized directly. Can’t silence the fuckheads, but you can appreciate other people dunking on them, at least
Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life
I agree.
However, if he made 100k a year and had to pay all of that, his life would have to last 12 million years. Just seems like some of the maths here is a bit off. But maybe I just don't understand the American justice system.
I mean we do multiple life sentences or life + so many years so I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply when the penalty is monetary. It's a super high number to ensure he's paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It's intended as a warning.
I mean how much money can you put on the price of someone's life, safety, or missed future potential earnings? I think it was just a huge number to "ruin the rest of his life" as he attempted to do.
For example, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The coffee was so hot it melted that lady's skin together. And this was an ongoing issue that McDonald's had been warned of several times and didn't listen. So while the lady was just trying to get her medical costs covered, the jury awarded an additional $2.7m in punitive damages because McDonald's didn't listen. Punitive damages are literally money as punishment.
Yeah. Sadly, the quote “If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it’s your problem; if you owe them a billion, it’s their problem” applies here too. Hopefully she bleeds him dry and maybe some prison time too.
I'm hoping he's a US citizen so he won't be able to avoid paying US taxes anywhere he goes without also getting a new identity and going into permanent hiding. As long as his life is destroyed far more comprehensively than his attempt to destroy hers, I'm happy.
Well done that jury. This is not just about a very large settlement, it's a very newsworthy settlement. It's impossible to measure the impact on crimes that don't happen but I reckon there will be a fair few potential perpetrators of this sort of crime who might just manage to get a fucking grip because of this. And a fair few victims who find a way to exact an entirely justified revenge on those who fail to grow the fuck up anyway.
I wouldn't say he is sentenced to destitution. Wage garnishment is capped at 25% of disposable income. And you keep a minimum of 217.5 per week (30 hours of minimum wage a week).
A 25% pay cut certainly hurts but depending on his income he could still have a decent life.
The amount is ridiculous but even a more reasonable sentence around 500k-5mil would probably not change anything for his situation. Most people wouldn't pay that off in their lifetime at 25% of income.
Hardly - he has an SSN. Any job that pays taxes he’ll be garnished. Even if he manages to hide his identity with a fake ssn, his life as it was is ruined. Definitely a form of justice considering he literally was trying to ruin her life through these actions.
The problem is not the he got a laughably high fine, it's that the others don't. I think something in the hundreds of thousands would be more appropriate for a private individual. I expect an appeal to reign that in some, if filed.
This is effectively making him pay for it, quite literally, for the rest of his life. Imo that sounds like a more severe punishment than if he were actually rich enough to pay all at once and just end it early.
TBF, I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of people would of considered doing what he did, a "dick move" or "petty" but not a serious crime. This serves as a wake up call.
As a german, I always find amusing when americans are scared of not being able to find a job because they have nude photos online. Meanwhile I have practically seen all of my colleagues/family naked either at the job showers, sauna or nudist parks and beaches.
German here too. I have no idea why, but I'd find that so incredibly weird. I guess I grew up in a very prude family. I'd love to be more open towards nudity because why the fuck not, there's nothing inherently sexual or weird about naked people, but I really struggle with that
I mean, the guy clear doesn't have or will ever have $1.2 Billion or anything even close. So clear he won't actually be paying almost all of this. It's like threatening to take something away you don't have in the firstplace?
Although he may not be able to pay 1.2 bil in damages, he surely can and will give away a lot of his paycheck to her. It's like alimony turned up to eleven.
at what he likely will be able to afford, he can pay her a thousand per month and he'll only be paying until the entire galaxy has made a full rotation, a full 100.000 years.
I get the point, but this 1.2 billion is just ridiculous.
Yes, this guy is an asshole, yes he needs to be punished, yes he needs to get punched in the dick for all I care but... In reality, worst case, she will likely suffer no more negative effects of this after 5 years whereas this dude can effectively kill himself because even if he wins 20 lotteries in a row, he still won't be able to get rid of this one. Punishment doesn't fit the crime here.
They may have well awarded 150 billion dollars worth of damages. There's no way it'll ever be paid so what's the goal here? Showcase an astronomical amount as a flex?
The point is not really the money. The point is the headline and the fact that there are remedies for when you can't pay a judgement. Like others said, his wages will be garnished forever. And this is one of the largest civil judgements ever. That plus the salacious nature means that anytime this guy's name is searched for, it will be beside this. It won't leave him.
Until we get better laws for things like revenge porn where there are actual criminal penalties, this is probably the best we can do.
Oh for fucks sakes. We have people who were wrongly imprisoned and spent decades in jail and they get a couple of hundred Gs and this lady is awarded $1.2B because someone saw her hoo-ha. We really have fucked up morals. The award amount is so obnoxious that I'm almost glad she'll never see a dime of it. This is just a mockery of justice.
I think it's an absurd ruling as well, but I don't feel bad for the douchebag in question. I don't really understand how they came up with the numbers. 1 billion in punitive damages? Based on what? Crazy.
But I'm fine with the guy being financially ruined for it. He deserves that much.
He posted her real name and address along with those videos and pics of her, which is basically opening her up to being attacked. He also threatened her job prospects and threatened to continue harassing her for the rest of her life. I agree that there should be more paid out to wrongly imprisoned people, but this was more than just having her hoo-ha shown.
You can call out the hypocrisy without minimizing her suffering. "They saw your bits, so what" is a ridiculous response to having your private sex videos shared with everyone you know