Playboy Mansion Denies Claim of Unfair Cover Charges: Men Pay up, Average Women Are Half-Price, And Hotties Are Free
Seems to be a regular thing at the Playboy Mansion in Holmby Hills: Hot chicks get in for free; sugar daddies and not-so-attractive women pay -- a lot.
Brian Walsh Free / pay / half price.
Playboy Enterprises International Inc., owner of the grounds, says this week it has nothing to do with that policy: It's the folks who rent the place who impose this pay structure at the door for the poor
perverts men who attend its slobber fests soirees.
Responding to a class action discrimination lawsuit we told you about in February, Playboy says ...
The undisputed facts show that [Playboy] did not set or charge the allegedly discriminatory pricing, nor did it aid or incite the pricing decision by the promoter.
This according to the latest update in the action, summarized by the adult industry news site XBIZ.
Lina Lecaro Candyland at the Playboy Mansion.
David Long Jr. filed suit early this year after attending a "White Party" there in 2009. He alleged that men were charged $625 for admission, "less attractive women" paid $350, and the hottie prices was free.
The claim was filed in L.A. Superior Court, but Playboy recently had it successfully moved to U.S. District Court downtown.
Playboy claims it has nothing to do with such pricing -- that it simply rents out its facilities to promoters who then put on such events.
(Interesting admission here, as Playboy has steadfastly claimed its events are strictly house parties and not the club-like happenings that neighbors say would otherwise be illegal in a residential neighborhood. Promoters. Cover charges. Superstar DJs. Sure sounds like a night club is going off in residential L.A. to us. Of course the city would never touch it with a 10-foot baton unless Mexicans and carne asada were involved).
And we would wonder aloud if Playboy really has no responsibility here considering that these kinds of parties with these kinds of pricing structures seem to happen quite regularly here. Even in its denial Playboy is not denying the actual discriminatory pricing structure. The company's just saying that it's not behind the discrimination. But there's a pattern. At what point does the company take responsibility?
Anyway, the company maintains it's just renting the place out:
In no way did [Playboy] participate in or dictate the admission price, guest list, or charity donations ... all of these items were set by the promoter exclusively.