I know he wouldn't bother, but Dave could probably sue IGG for reputational damage, as they have clearly failed to do any due diligence to prevent fraud.
That would be a bad idea (apart from being a serious waste of my time and fiscal suicide), I'd lose.
No argument that it wouldn't be financially viable with the messed-up US legal system.
They have a mechanism in place to report this stuff,
Yes, but if they fail to take it down in a reasonable time ( 24h) that would pretty much negate that as a "due diligence" argument. ISTR someone mentioned they've seen capaigns left until almost ended before they got taken down.
and could easily argue that the photo and video all matched my profile photo and it all looked otherwise legit.
But the fact that it is identical to a recently ended KS campaign is a major red flag that they could easily have checked.
They could easily claim that any further checks would hinder their business model of large volume of new campaigns etc.?
being a threat to their business model is not a defence if their negligence causes damage to someone's reputation
The only winners would be the lawyers.
Quite probably, though the publicity of a successful case against them could hurt IGG so they might settle out of court.
Then again it seems like they don't give a toss about their reputation. I'm surprised anyone still uses them.