[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Valiant

Seems like the contracting agency is in trouble then unless their contract stipulated yanking down girls tops.. Of course she is not suing for assault..

According to a few other reports that I just read online, she was dancing flirtatiously in the bar and this drew the attention of GGW to her. The contracted lady then proceeded to tug on her blouse, ultimately exposing her breasts. The original suit was settled in favor of GGW due to them claiming that by her dancing and such, she gave "implied consent".

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...#ixzz1tPBH3Jpy

In addition, I also read that GGW accepts either written or verbal, (on camera), consent. It wasn't until after she was exposed when she said, "no".

Edit: Ohhhhhh, and there's more...

Defendants noted there were signs all over the bar stating how the footage obtained that night would be used. Favazza claimed she didn't read them. She also believed no one would be "stupid enough" to use the footage without her consent. http://news.yahoo.com/girls-gone-wil...215900618.html