From Doe v. T.T., II, Inc., decided yesterday by Judge Dale Kimball (D. Utah.):
Defendant T.T. … is an escort service … When Plaintiff agreed to work as an escort in conjunction with Defendants, she signed an agreement indicating that her services as an escort would involve nudity in the presence of customers….
As part of her intake process, the parties discussed that she would need to engage in some advertisement activity directed at attracting male customers and that this would also include nudity. Defendants maintain a website advertising their services and providing photographs of their escorts. The photographs are sexually suggestive but do not generally include nudity….
Plaintiff provided photographs that included some nudity, but the nude photographs did not show her face. Defendants used the photographs Plaintiff provided to them in advertisements. Plaintiff also provided Defendants with some facial shots, but they agreed that they would not be displayed with photographs containing nudity.
In connection with her work as an escort for Defendants, Plaintiff used an assumed name. The photographs they used in advertising used that assumed name. Defendants did not use or provide information as to Plaintiff's actual name or identity. As part of its advertising for its escorts, Defendants supplied photographs to certain websites featuring sexy, nude, or semi-nude models….
Plaintiff does not claim that Defendants created ads for her without her permission. However, Plaintiff alleges that she was there was one posting including a series of photographs involving nudity that also included a photograph including her face. Plaintiff did not want photographs including her face posted with other nude photographs. She contacted Defendant about the posting and they remedied the situation. She claims that the erroneous posting was up for approximately two hours.
Defendants posted the ads between the time Plaintiff started working with them, approximately August 2024, and when she resigned in October 2024. After Plaintiff quit, Defendant erased her files….
Defendants state that they complied with all of Plaintiff's requests, with the exception of the posting including her face that was posted for less than 2 hours. That posting was a mistake and they took it down. Plaintiff quit in October 2024, and she asked that the pictures be taken down. Defendant acknowledges that it took them several days to take them down but it was in their own business interest to have them removed timely as well….
