The franchiThe videos have themes such as girl gone wild video: Ultimate Spring Break or girl gone wild video: Sexy Sorority Sweethearts and are marketed to young adult men.[citation needed] They are chiefly sold via television mail order and are frequently advertised on late-night television infomercials, with a brief "warning" message as a disclaimer before the commercial begins.
In some states in the U.S., exposing oneself in a public area is a criminal offense defined by state law as indecent exposure, public lewdness, or sexual misconduct, etc. One notable exception is New York, where the Court of Appeals held in 1992 that the state constitution's equal protection provision allows women to go topless in any public area where men also have that right.[1] However, whereas toplessness in itself may not be grounds for arrest, many of the women featured in girl gone wild video commit other acts in public that may be considered lewd and therefore liable to criminal prosecution.
Women who expose themselves in this manner have no expectation of privacy; moreover, GGW staff members claim they get every flasher to sign a model release.[2] The legal effect of these factors has resulted in a waiver of some women and girls' rights to bring a lawsuit against GGW. girl gone wild video was recently cited as an example of "sexualization" (number 23) on USA Today's list of the "25 Trends that Changed America".se has become so successful in recent years that several knockoff videos emerged bearing the "girl gone wild video" name. These videos lack any other apparent connection to the franchise; for instance, they lack the typical stylized intro and on-camera narration from the show's producers, and contain no end credits of any kind—thus, they also do not contain the Mantra Entertainment logo. These particular videos have crews that will patrol the festivals in locations such as Mardi Gras or Las Vegas claiming to be affiliated with girl gone wild video, even distributing convincing girl gone wild video t-shirts. Videos compiled from the use of this technique have been released, at least via the Internet. Also Wild Party Girls and several other knockoffs have used the girl gone wild video formula with only minor aesthetic changes.
On December 16, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Mantra Films, Inc., and its sole officer and director Joseph R. Francis, seeking civil penalties for violations of previous Commission determinations concerning unfair and deceptive acts or practices and consumer redress. Violations of previous Commission determinations that an act or practice is unfair or deceptive and unlawful carry a civil penalty of up to $11,000 per violation. The Commission’s complaint alleges that since December 2000, Mantra and Francis deceptively marketed girl gone wild video videos and DVDs to consumers, automatically shipped these unordered videos and DVDs to consumers, and charged consumers for them without consumers’ consent.
On July 30, 2004, the FTC announced a stipulated court order under which the sellers of "girl gone wild video" DVDs and videos would pay nearly $1.1 million as combined consumer redress and a civil penalty and will be barred from a wide range of activities detailed in a complaint the U.S. Department of Justice filed on behalf of the FTC in late 2003. According to the FTC, the defendants marketed "girl gone wild video" DVDs and videos as part of continuity programs that resulted in monthly shipments of DVDs or videos to consumers who did not agree to receive them.
On September 12, 2006, Francis pleaded guilty to federal charges of failing to document the ages of young women engaging in sexual acts in the videos, as federal law requires. There was a plea agreement, part of which required Francis to pay $2.1 million: a $500,000 fine and $1.6 million in restitution. A 2006 episode of Law & Order explored some of the controversy with girl gone wild video, using a fictional organization with similar practices.
On December 13, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Mantra Films had been sentenced to pay $1.6 million in criminal fines for failing to create and maintain age and identity records for films it produced, and that the “package agreement” between the government and Mantra Films, MRA Holdings, LLC, and Joe Francis required a public acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing, a pledge of cooperation with the government in future investigations, full compliance with the record keeping laws, and payment of a total of $2.1 million in fines and restitution.
On January 22, 2007, Francis was scheduled to be sentenced on similar offenses in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.[9] Under a three-year deferred prosecution agreement, MRA Holdings, LLC, is to employ an independent outside monitor to ensure that the company complies with federal laws. In January 2007, Circuit Judge Dedee Costello in Pensacola, Florida dropped most of the charges against Francis claiming that "the evidence did not support the allegations..." However, the remaining felony counts charge that Francis and the company used and conspired to use minors in sexual performances, charges which carry a combined maximum penalty of 40 years in prison. Two misdemeanor counts which also remain charge Francis and the company with prostitution.
read more
