Mo. Woman Wins $5.77M In 'Girls Gone Wild' Suit

[onenote]

6. The jury in the first case concluded she had given her implied consent

From what I've read about the case, the producers claimed that there were signs posted indicating that the party was being filmed, although I don't know what exactly these signs disclosed. The plaintiff claimed not to have seen the signs. According to one juror, the verdict against the plaintiff was based on their having concluded that she was playing to the cameras.

I suspect that the reason she was able to prevail on retrial is that it came out that the person lifting her top was an employee, plus the fact that the plaintiff can be heard on the video saying "no" when she's asked to flash the camera.

Juries are unpredictable.