Personal trainer Lauren Taylor and her husband Mark were married for three years.
But when they first met, she said, she found her husband had been taking advantage of her, including taking a $5,000 vacation in a private jet.
When she started asking for more, he would demand money back, and she’d be forced to sign an “assignment agreement” with a different person.
They tried everything.
They went to court.
They had an attorney hired.
And after a year, they lost.
The couple was “lucky,” Taylor said, because they didn’t have to sign the agreement themselves.
The only way out was for the court to overturn the decision.
They were able to get their money back and get married again.
They are now divorced, and they want to share their story with others.
But it took them years to get to that point.
The court found that Mark Taylor, who was paid $10,000 for the trip, was in fact a sex trafficker, and that he abused his position as a trainer to extort money from the couple.
Taylor is now fighting back.
She filed a lawsuit against the company that employed her, and is now asking the court for an order that would prevent the company from hiring him again.
Her attorney, Matthew Smith, says Taylor was not a sex trafficking victim, and says the court was wrong to rule against him.
“It’s a classic case of the court saying, ‘You know what?
You’ve done it,'” he said.
Taylor and Smith are both married and the father of two children.
They have a daughter and a son.
But while the case has made headlines, it’s not the first time a case has gone to trial.
It’s a problem that’s getting worse.
And it’s getting even worse, thanks to the rise of online platforms like Uber and Lyft.
While there are no federal laws on the books regulating online platforms, some states have tried to regulate them.
New York has tried to create a “consumer protection agency” that would regulate the platforms.
A bill introduced in the state Assembly last year, by state Sen. Scott Stringer, would require online platforms to keep a record of what people have ordered, what they’ve paid, and who paid them.
A California bill that’s on the ballot this November would ban the platforms from collecting or selling personal information without a valid opt-out.
The bill was introduced after an Uber driver who was raped in the Bronx by a driver he’d met on the platform was sentenced to five years in prison.
Lyft has also been on the defensive after a driver in a Los Angeles area city was sentenced in January to seven years in jail after pleading guilty to raping a passenger and his passenger.
In California, a driver who ordered a ride from a driver whose name was on his profile was sentenced last month to six years in state prison after pleading no contest to the rape charge.
And while Lyft has had to work with regulators and police to combat the problem, the company has also found itself in the crosshairs of lawmakers.
In 2015, the state Legislature passed a bill that would have banned Uber and other ride-hailing platforms from offering a service that allowed drivers to track passengers, and to track the location of the vehicle, in the event of a crash.
The legislation was vetoed by Gov.
Gavin Newsom, a Democrat.
The law, which also was aimed at protecting consumers, was a reaction to an investigation by The New York Times that revealed that drivers were being trained by the company and were using information from passengers to track them and their vehicles.
The state law was one of the biggest regulatory moves of the last several years, and has been widely criticized.
It was eventually struck down by the California legislature, and a bill introduced last year would have required ride-sharing companies to give drivers more information about the location and characteristics of their cars, and for them to post driver-reported incidents on a website.
But the legislation died in the Assembly in May.
That same month, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra wrote a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission that said that the state was “disappointed” that the agency would not act on his request to require a data-collection program.
“The California Public Utility Commission’s current policies and practices are not consistent with California law,” Becerras letter said.
“If California intends to continue to allow ride-share companies to collect and sell driver’s information, it should establish a data collection program that is compliant with California consumer protection law and that requires the companies to obtain driver consent before selling this information.”
The California Public Transportation Commission and Lyft did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
In recent months, other states have been moving to regulate the industry, too.
The New Jersey legislature approved a bill last month that would require all ride-hoisting companies to create data-retention plans, similar to the ones Uber and others use.
The company said it was studying the bill and could provide additional