Quoted By:
IMMERHEIM DISTRICT COURT
Goslingtomo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiff,v.Cecilia Immergreen of HololiveEN Justice,Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Goslingtomo and thousands of Crankers bring this class action against Cecilia Immergreen for failing to deliver promised premium content.
Members paid €5/month for 7 months expecting:
Members-only live streams (games, watchalongs, tea parties, etc.);
Members-only polls;
Tier-exclusive content (audio diaries, ASMRs, music pieces, etc.);
GFE ASMR and good-night heartbeat recordings with whispered affirmations.
Defendant failed to provide polls or tier-exclusive content, breaching the agreement and misleading subscribers.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction under Martial Law, and venue is proper as Defendant operates within this district.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Goslingtomo subscribed based on advertised benefits.
Defendant Cecilia Immergreen is responsible for the failed content delivery.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs represent all individuals who paid for Defendant’s membership between 1.07.2024 and 06.03.2025 (still paying)
Common legal questions include:
Whether Defendant misrepresented membership benefits;
Whether Defendant’s omissions constitute a breach of contract;
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to damages.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I – Breach of Contract
Plaintiffs paid for exclusive content that was not delivered.
Defendant’s failure to provide it constitutes a material breach.
Count II – Deceptive Practices
Defendant misled consumers, violating applicable consumer protection laws.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek:
A. Certification of the Class;
B. Damages for deceptive practices;
C. Injunctive relief against misleading advertisements;
D. Attorney’s fees and costs;
E. Marrying Goslingtomo
F. Any other relief deemed just by the Court.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,Lawyertomo, Attorney for Plaintiffs
