>>24858290Honestly I think there actually might be a legitimate case for this, but it'd have to be a civil case and everyone would have to be in the same country.
Realistically, it would be too hard to sue nijisanji for an experimental case like this that would set precedents.
Lets say it was an american corporation with an american talent, and the plaintiffs are all american.
In the civil suit, the case would be that
>the defendant(the company owning the vtuber) advertised a misleading service through a company mascot to scam their customer base and the plaintiff are seeking damages both financially and psychologicallyNow, the defense will make the argument that any donations to the vtuber were charitable donations, and that any funds received by the company was at no time a guarantee of any service provided for payment.
The plaintiff's lawyers would have to argue that the company had complete control over the content that the vtuber mascot produced, and would compare it to tv/advertisment/movie producers coordinating an actor, with legal precedent that plaintiffs in the past have been able to sue production companies for false advertisement/damaging content
They would need to show that the vtuber in question was asking for money while acting as the mascot for the company, while specifically targeting weak, psychologically exploitable "marks"
The defense would have to prove that they did not specifically target vulnerable individuals, which would include discovery of all private messages and emails within the company that talk about ways to game top donators and to make content specifically to retain high membership
It's an interesting case, but I doubt any anons would ever band together for this
