>>99527618one case, and it wasn't really a defamation case. many of the issues involved that the case revolved around and won the case had to do with privacy and relevance of details released.
at best this case would mean Sinder could sue on the relevancy of bringing up she cheated in the past, but has little relevance of nanoless revealing factual logs she was a part of.
which is also to the point. Gawker had no direct part in the tapes, meaning no jurisdiction of the use of the contents as an actual person involved.
Nanoless was directly involved in the conversations, so easily can be argued to have jurisdiction over their use. and without contract, most Us law does not really award you a right to not have the other party use private conversations, only rights against third parties.
>>99527828this too. they used the material to turn a profit.
Nano could argue the loss of profit by what went down, or fear of it should it come out improperly not on her terms.
also, this would as far as im aware, be the first vtuber vs vtuber case in america. no judge wants to touch that. whos suing who? is it the person behind sinder suing the person behind naonless? or is it sinder vs nanoless?
if its the second, it may even be irrelevant, as the 'entities' themselves may not even have money to sue for. its like how corpos have absolutely gotten away with paying less before based on how blame is legally assigned, often pushing for specific angles where they know they dont have much money there so therefore will be assigned to pay less based off their revenue stream.
