Posted in: News

Girls Gone Wild Case Ends With $5.7 Million Verdict For Tamara Favazza

girls gone wild

The “Girls Gone Wild” case is finally coming to an end. Tamara Favazza filed a lawsuit against the makers of GGW in 2008 after her naked breasts were used in one of the DVDs without her consent. A judge has now ruled in favor of Favazza and has awarded her nearly $6 million. Mantra Films Inc. has asked for a retrial.

AZ Central reports that Favazza filed a lawsuit against Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holdings LLC when she found out that a video of her naked breasts were part of the “Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy” DVD series. Favazza, who was 20-years-old when the tape was made, said that someone lifted her tank top during a party at a St. Louis club.

Favazza filed the lawsuit in 2008 claiming that she did not give consent and that the DVD damaged her reputation. A jury initially sided with Mantra Films in 2010. Three months later John J. Riley granted a retrial as he believed that the evidence in the case favored Favazza and not Mantra Films.

During the original trial, Mantra Films denied responsibility saying that there were signs all around the Rum Club explaining the intent of the video. Favazza said that she never saw the signs and never planned on exposing herself. Favazza also said that you can see her mouth the word “no” on the video as someone else pulls down her top.

Earlier this month, St. Louis Circuit Judge John Garvey ruled in favor of Gavazza and awarded her $5.77 million. Mantra Films has asked for a retrial .

The Seattle Times notes that Joe Francis, the founder of the “Girls Gone Wild” series, has made a fortune from the DVDs despite numerous lawsuits against him. Francis was originally named in the lawsuit but was dismissed from the “Girls Gone Wild” Case in 2009.

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

One Response to “Girls Gone Wild Case Ends With $5.7 Million Verdict For Tamara Favazza”

  1. Jeff Johnson

    1. No picture, come-on yahoo. Doesn't have to be xrated but this article is about a picture or video and there is no picture.
    2. Hmmmm… A college student that cannot read, she didn't see the signs, couldn't read them. Great education.
    3. All the other "girls" knew what was going on and were getting nude or flashing. She was just "hanging" out. so she was like -just walking along and stopped in a bar to see the action and OH-oh my shirt got lifted up and gee-whiz my picture got taken-just like Janet Jackson.
    4. Is this a bar? and she is 20? What is the drinking age in St Louis?- 20?
    5. IF she didn't know what was going on she was a moron. Any kid that goes to college knows all the party life and events going on. No way she didn't GGW was filming there-NO WAY.
    6.5.8 million, come on idiotic settlement. why didn't she sue whoever pulled up her shirt? OR press charges on the "shirt remover?" Funny huh, a real money grubber.
    7. Still iIts wrong-totally but why was she there? I find it funny that nothing happened until her husband found out and the walk of shame set in. Then it became huge when they found out the company had deep pockets and they could get a piece of it.
    8. If she donates all the "winnings" from her showing to charity I will respect her decision other wise she is just sold her body just like playboy or penthouse.

    PS. I didn't know you could keep suing until you win.