Patreon to go bust?

[kail]

I'm a freedom of speech type person.

I have too much respect for freedom of speech that sadly that also means idiots are allowed to speak their idiot beliefs.

Its up to the individual to be educated and coming from a place of love on issues to not be strayed by hateful propaganda. For example I wouldnt have voted for the Nazi party in 1930 germany because it was clear from day dot they had an axe to grind even though they held back the anti jew stuff till later in their reign once they had power.

Companies having rights over their platform is free speech.

[eschatological]

They aren't winning them, that much is for sure. There's already over 100 claims up for arbitration, which they have to pay the majority of the fees for, costing them up to 10K per arbitration. So they are already likely going to lose money that they really don't have trying to fight arbitrations, all because they chose to ban content creators for stupid reasons. And this goes well beyond Owen Benjamin and Lauren Southern.

The fact that a judge said it has to go to arbitration is in no way an endorsement of the merits of the case. It's simply a reading of how it must be adjudicated.

Again, if there are no merits to the claim (IE, Patreon wins pro forma), the arbitrator can sanction the plaintiffs for filing for malicious prosecution (even though it's through arbitration). This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so maybe that's less true in California, but that's why you incorporate in Delaware. This ruling has no bearing on whether the arbitration claims are malicious or not, because the ruling doesn't look at the merits of the claim, at all.

To me, the claims are, at best, frivolous. But I think Benjamin's campaign to gather patrons who otherwise wouldn't have thought to sue to try and "punish" Patreon even though their claims are frivolous, definitely meets the bar for malicious to me. And an arbitrator can make Benjamin and his cronies pay for his arbitration fees if they find it malicious.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a link to the court order the judge applied to Patreon https://s9503.pcdn.co/wp-content/upl...Injunction.pdf

Mike Cernovich, a lawyer who got the Epstein files unsealed, was discussing the ruling and what it impact it could have on Patreon long term on Twitter a few days ago. It wouldn't take a huge amount of arbitrations to put Patreon out of business because they chose to violate their own rules and the law. The whole ban of Sargon of Akkad on Patreon was ridiculous in my estimation, everything that I've seen from him over the years, wouldn't justify any form of ban. Conceivably, Sargon's Patron base would be enough to outright crush them, and it wouldn't even need to be a third of them to do it. Like I said in a previous post, upwards of 10k per arbitration, if they had say even 1000 arbitrations put against them, that'd be close to 10 million dollars, I don't think they have that in the bank. And Patreon laid off 13% of it's workforce barely a month ago. So any notion that they aren't struggling financially would be a dishonest lie.

Mike Cernovich, a noted right wing grifter who searched 10 years of James Gunn tweets for a pedophilia joke to try and get him canceled to prove a point? LOL.

Also, he had very little to do with the unsealing of the Epstein docs.

[Machismo]

The fact that a judge said it has to go to arbitration is in no way an endorsement of the merits of the case. It's simply a reading of how it must be adjudicated.

Again, if there are no merits to the claim (IE, Patreon wins pro forma), the arbitrator can sanction the plaintiffs for filing for malicious prosecution (even though it's through arbitration). This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so maybe that's less true in California, but that's why you incorporate in Delaware. This ruling has no bearing on whether the arbitration claims are malicious or not, because the ruling doesn't look at the merits of the claim, at all.

To me, the claims are, at best, frivolous. But I think Benjamin's campaign to gather patrons who otherwise wouldn't have thought to sue to try and "punish" Patreon even though their claims are frivolous, definitely meets the bar for malicious to me. And an arbitrator can make Benjamin and his cronies pay for his arbitration fees if they find it malicious.

- - - Updated - - -



Mike Cernovich, a noted right wing grifter who searched 10 years of James Gunn tweets for a pedophilia joke to try and get him canceled to prove a point? LOL.

Also, he had very little to do with the unsealing of the Epstein docs.

You mean the woman-hating douchebag who... lives off the spousal support of his ex-wife?

[Rennadrel]

Lol. Yeah I support creators on Patreon, and made a point of getting this news out to them specifically too, because I don't want them to be caught with their pants down if/when Patreon goes bust.


Within the law of course . That's the bit people seem to keep getting tripped up on ITT.

Couple more links re all this:

Never heard of these people before today, but hey, the good news is that creators are at least alert to the legal/financial troubles at Patreon and are taking steps to protect themselves, which is a good thing.

Tim Pool is a shit head, it's hard to take him seriously when he can't be consistent in his views. Leonard French does some good legal videos, I've watched some of his stuff before. Between him, Richard Hoegg who does Virtual Legality on YT, those are the two I've watched the most. Not a big fan of Rekieta Law myself, I think he tends to exaggerate things a lot. Law can be a boring and dry subject though so I guess having some flair, but it can be shitty. But the fact is that this story is getting covered and Patreon put themselves in this hot mess. I'll be very surprised if they get out of it. They were already in financial trouble before the pandemic.

[Svifnymr]

The fact that a judge said it has to go to arbitration is in no way an endorsement of the merits of the case. It's simply a reading of how it must be adjudicated.

Again, if there are no merits to the claim (IE, Patreon wins pro forma), the arbitrator can sanction the plaintiffs for filing for malicious prosecution (even though it's through arbitration). This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so maybe that's less true in California, but that's why you incorporate in Delaware. This ruling has no bearing on whether the arbitration claims are malicious or not, because the ruling doesn't look at the merits of the claim, at all.

To me, the claims are, at best, frivolous. But I think Benjamin's campaign to gather patrons who otherwise wouldn't have thought to sue to try and "punish" Patreon even though their claims are frivolous, definitely meets the bar for malicious to me. And an arbitrator can make Benjamin and his cronies pay for his arbitration fees if they find it malicious.

From what I've seen, it's a purely California thing. To help the "little guy" that was screwed over through mandatory arbitrations, they passed laws to protect them. So, the person filing the complaint against the company is only responsible for $250 (I believe) and all other fees are paid for by the company. So if it costs $10,000 in fees and such for the arbitrator, the company pays $9,975+ whatever fees they need to pay for their own defense/ lawyers. There's no malicious blowback I believe because that would punish the little man when the big bad corporation went after them to regain some of that cash.

Basically that's what Patreon was trying to do, bring it to court to get it changed from arbitration to a lawsuit/ class action, so they could have the same costs/protections as lawsuits provide.

So, if you get 100 people to file complaints for arbitration, the company might have to pay 1,000,000 in fees before the case is even looked at to determine how stupid it is. From what I've seen, the cases have at least a basic legal justification (Patreon was part of a contract between X and Y and canceled it without consent), but wouldn't win anyway (X and Y can still maintain their contract directly). But that doesn't matter, since it's the $1,000,000 bill that will kill Patreon.

This before any others add-on.

[eschatological]

From what I've seen, it's a purely California thing. To help the "little guy" that was screwed over through mandatory arbitrations, they passed laws to protect them. So, the person filing the complaint against the company is only responsible for $250 (I believe) and all other fees are paid for by the company. So if it costs $10,000 in fees and such for the arbitrator, the company pays $9,975+ whatever fees they need to pay for their own defense/ lawyers. There's no malicious blowback I believe because that would punish the little man when the big bad corporation went after them to regain some of that cash.

In that case, I don't see why Patreon doesn't get to change its ToS post facto in light of changed legislation. Pre-that law, maybe they were fine with arbitration because malicious claims could lead to recovery of fees. It makes no sense to punish a company for changing their legal liability in light of new legislation. And from what I understand, Patreon did exactly that, updating its ToS the day the legislation went into effect....for which now Benjamin wants to punish them?

Now, I'm not a corporate/contract lawyer, and the last time I gave a shit about "tortious interference" was when I was studying for the bar, and corporate law bores the ever living shit out of me, so I don't know the law as well as others might, in this field. But common sense tells me a new TOS should be able to change the terms of the old TOS if they can show it would be not in their own corporate interest to keep their ToS the same in light of the new legislation.

I'd definitely appeal if I was Patreon.

[Svifnymr]

In that case, I don't see why Patreon doesn't get to change its ToS post facto in light of changed legislation. Pre-that law, maybe they were fine with arbitration because malicious claims could lead to recovery of fees. It makes no sense to punish a company for changing their legal liability in light of new legislation. And from what I understand, Patreon did exactly that, updating its ToS the day the legislation went into effect....for which now Benjamin wants to punish them?

I'm not positive when the law was passed, but it was before the bans. So, law passed whenever, Patreon bans folks, people complain, someone figures out the Arbitration angle and they get a bunch of folks to file.

Patreon then realizes what fees they must pay, and changes their TOS, then changes it again after that.

I think the TOS required people to formally complain, and then if their needs were not met, file Arbitration. So they complained, Patreon changed the TOS so you couldn't file or something, then they filed Arbitration and Patreon changed it again to say it had to be a lawsuit, no Arbitration. So the lawsuit was to try to make the customers subject to the twice revised ToS's that were specifically drafted to make their actions wrong after the fact. So the judge ruled that didn't work that way.

It's not that the law changed, it's that Patreon didn't understand the existing law made them vulnerable to fees in a case like this. When they saw the bill coming due, they tried to change things and that's not allowed.

It's more like the Liar Liar scene "Objection!" "On what grounds?" "Because it's very damaging to my case!!!".

[Teleros]

But I think Benjamin's campaign to gather patrons who otherwise wouldn't have thought to sue to try and "punish" Patreon even though their claims are frivolous, definitely meets the bar for malicious to me.

Not quite the same, because arbitrations =/= court cases, but wouldn't this thinking imply most, if not all, class action lawsuits are malicious? "I've been hurt by X, and I'm looking for more people harmed by X to go to court with me against X" is what it boils down to.

They were already in financial trouble before the pandemic.

From what I heard they were (a) overstaffed, and (b) losing an estimated $1.5M a month, based on things like their office location, size, etc. So yeah, that makes sense.

From what I've seen, the cases have at least a basic legal justification (Patreon was part of a contract between X and Y and canceled it without consent)

The key part I believe is that Patreon wasn't a party to the contract. Logically (for what that's worth re the legal system :P ) that implies that if the had been a party to the contract then tortious interference on their part wouldn't be a valid complaint - although in turn I'm guessing that Patreon didn't do this because it might have left them on the hook for many other legal issues.

In that case, I don't see why Patreon doesn't get to change its ToS post facto in light of changed legislation.

They can, but as Owen Benjamin was banned under the old ToS, that's the ToS that must be applied. If it was legal for companies to change such stuff on the fly and have it apply retroactively then suing them would be borderline impossible.

"Important update to our customers: we've updated our T&C to exclude Mr Joe Bloggs of Milton Keynes, Jane Doe of Richmond, VA, and [insert long list of other individuals] from being able to seek any redress of grievances."

Yes it's hyperbole, but you get the idea. Now, add to that the whole issue about unconscionable contracts/clauses/terms, or flat-out illegal ones (see the bit I quoted about waiving your right to trial by jury!), and... yeah. What a mess.

Incidentally, Patreon are not the first people this has been successfully tried on. Uber settled with their drivers after mass arbitration, and DoorDash was hit by the same strategy not too long ago too. Difference is, this time it's a famous tech company, which has all those big Silicon Valley giants concerned.

[Machismo]

Not quite the same, because arbitrations =/= court cases, but wouldn't this thinking imply most, if not all, class action lawsuits are malicious? "I've been hurt by X, and I'm looking for more people harmed by X to go to court with me against X" is what it boils down to.


From what I heard they were (a) overstaffed, and (b) losing an estimated $1.5M a month, based on things like their office location, size, etc. So yeah, that makes sense.


The key part I believe is that Patreon wasn't a party to the contract. Logically (for what that's worth re the legal system :P ) that implies that if the had been a party to the contract then tortious interference on their part wouldn't be a valid complaint - although in turn I'm guessing that Patreon didn't do this because it might have left them on the hook for many other legal issues.


They can, but as Owen Benjamin was banned under the old ToS, that's the ToS that must be applied. If it was legal for companies to change such stuff on the fly and have it apply retroactively then suing them would be borderline impossible.

"Important update to our customers: we've updated our T&C to exclude Mr Joe Bloggs of Milton Keynes, Jane Doe of Richmond, VA, and [insert long list of other individuals] from being able to seek any redress of grievances."

Yes it's hyperbole, but you get the idea. Now, add to that the whole issue about unconscionable contracts/clauses/terms, or flat-out illegal ones (see the bit I quoted about waiving your right to trial by jury!), and... yeah. What a mess.

Incidentally, Patreon are not the first people this has been successfully tried on. Uber settled with their drivers after mass arbitration, and DoorDash was hit by the same strategy not too long ago too. Difference is, this time it's a famous tech company, which has all those big Silicon Valley giants concerned.

If they are not a party to that contract, then they are under no obligation to uphold that contract. They don't have to lift a finger, and don't have to facilitate it in any fashion.

[s_bushido]

You'd figure a person that studies the law like this mod would know that. Guess he skipped that part. Btw @eschatological you never answered my questions on how nick is a grifter.

That moderator of forums that are neither Gen-OT nor Politics is just as much an authority on this topic as Tim Pool or Mike Cernovich, and yet you have no problem unquestionably believing what those fucking morons have to say.

[Machismo]

Contracts are binding to both parties. One party can't just change the contract. Without letting ther other know. Thats the whole crux of the ossue here. If one oay van kegally show the contract was changed with out knowledge. That contract is void.

As it stands, they don't seem to be in breach of any actual contracts. Sure, they have to go to arbitration, but that's it.

Anything between Benjamin and his racist fanboys is irrelevant.

I support Patreon's refusal to do business with racist trash.

Since we also see clear evidence of this being an attempt to litigate them to death, I hope the arbitrators and judges stick it to the racist shitbags who are suing them.

[eschatological]

You'd figure a person that studies the law like this mod would know that. Guess he skipped that part. Btw @eschatological you never answered my questions on how nick is a grifter.

Well, for example, he raised 260k to defend Vic from Rooster Teeth against "defamation" IE very well founded sexual harassment claims by female Rooster Teeth employees. That case has been pretty much thrown out of court, but Nick was involved because "fuck MeToo" I guess?

He also was big on the Google employee who got fired for saying sexist shit on an internal email.

Then, he also does shit like "shit on Captain Marvel while lauding Alita" even though Alita was just as, if not more, shit than CM.

He's basically a right wing grifter, and the fact that he has a law degree means jack and/or shit. His YouTube channel is a hotbed of right wing outrage culture bullshit that he tries to frame from a legal perspective and fails badly at.

Also, IDK if you know this, but lawyers specialize in different things. I haven't done ANY corporate law, ever, in my career. The last time I studied contracts was in my 1L year of law school, which was now almost 15 years ago. The last time I gave a shit about corporate law was when I was studying for the bar exam, more than 10 years ago. My entire career has been as a public defender, then as a human rights lawyer focusing on immigration cases of asylum/refugee law, which is.....well, completely the opposite of contract law.

- - - Updated - - -

Not quite the same, because arbitrations =/= court cases, but wouldn't this thinking imply most, if not all, class action lawsuits are malicious? "I've been hurt by X, and I'm looking for more people harmed by X to go to court with me against X" is what it boils down to.

No, because class-action suits that actually have merits......are not malicious.

- - - Updated - - -

Your salt level is high. I belive in what the judge said. Not what they say. The judge said they can't do that.

The judge issued an injunction saying they have to go to arbitration. Nothing was said about the merits of Benjamin's claims.

[Svifnymr]

The key part I believe is that Patreon wasn't a party to the contract. Logically (for what that's worth re the legal system :P ) that implies that if the had been a party to the contract then tortious interference on their part wouldn't be a valid complaint - although in turn I'm guessing that Patreon didn't do this because it might have left them on the hook for many other legal issues.

I am not a lawyer and haven't even looked at the TOS or whatever deal the signups do. (I had a Patreon briefly and dropped it.)
I think of it as let's say you make a magazine, and the publisher handles sending out the magazines to your subscribers and accepting the payment and paying you for it. Then one day, the publisher decides to not carry your magazine anymore. The subscribers were buying your magazine, but the publisher was a middleman that was responsible for everything.
Like a Kickstarter or a lot of the current crop of "we're a big company that does nothing but connect you with someone and take some of the money" Gig-economy things, Patreon did the paperwork. You had a contract with Patreon for your contract with the Provider, you never saw the Provider. Patreon decided to cancel your account with a Provider.

As I said, plenty of ways for a person to connect/ fund their Provider directly, but Patreon handled all that, then tossed it all in the garbage. So they interfered with your ability to connect with the Provider. I don't think Patreon had a real responsibility to continue the process, so I think they would win in the end, but this stuff is all the very preliminary stuff in a lawsuit. "We think they screwed us" "okay, let's look at it", but looking at it costs Patreon money.

[Machismo]

And that's your and Patreon's prerogative. But Patreon tried to weasel out of the rules they established. This is 100% Patreons fault. This is an example of why you need to give crystal clear reasons on how/why users violated Patreon ToS and have clear rules that don't change like with anime art.

We. Don't. Serve. Shitty. Racists.

They should put that on the top.

[eschatological]

Vics case is in appeals due to chupp ruling all of vics claims are covered under TCPA. That's were the case stands ATM. As for alita. Man brie Larson was wooden as fuck playing marvel I enjoyed alita. I do commend you for actually answering back. Im not being facetious. I get enough of (x) is (x) and no one back up shit. I take back the stuff i said. Chupp does have a history of getting his verdicts overturned so it's something to watch out for. Tcpa shouldn't cover TI that moronica did to vic. Yet chupp ruled it does. This is the part i think will hurt monica and funimation.

I'm not here to litigate the merits of Captain Marvel vs Alita. I thought they were both pretty mediocre.

Furthermore, there's like 15+ years of claims against Vic from RT, from many different women who submitted signed and notarized affadavits.

The point is, Nick Rekeita is always biased to what's considered "the conservative, right wing" viewpoint, even though I don't think misogyny is a particularly political issue...though somehow "holding sexual harassers and predators accountable" has become political to a baffling set of conservatives.

[Machismo]

All of vic claims are by twitter. No video, no audio, no nothing. It's literally he said, she said. Im getting way off topic so that's the last I'll say about it. Bill Cosby and Weinstein got busted with proof. But we also got people like chris harwick and Johnny Depp. Look at the shit depp had to put up with with amber heard. #metoo is just weaponized outrage culture. There's no political issue with me when it comes to claims. My view is that's something for the courts.

Ironically, this is the ultimate form of "cancel culture," and you are fully on board for it.

We are so fucking far down the rabbit hole at this point, that I doubt you people even have a clue what you actually stand for.

[Machismo]

I recall you saying laws are the ultimate cancel culture. That's not their purpose i am for people defending themselves from claims people raped them. Defamation is a thing.

You ever wonder why i hardly label people baselessly (i do from time to time so i can't say never). Because i have to back up the claims. That's literally the same logic and how it applies to the real world

You recall me saying government force is the ultimate cancel culture.

This is an attempt to cancel something via government force. You bitch and moan about people using free speech to "cancel" something, yet are cheering at the idea of using men with guns to do the same thing.

Once again, this is where we are at. You despise freedom of speech and freedom of association, but love the idea of trying to sue someone to death. Now, what led you down this path of authoritarianism? What was the noble cause? That's right... it was defending Nazis and other assorted racist trash.

This is you.

[eschatological]

All of vic claims are by twitter. No video, no audio, no nothing. It's literally he said, she said. Im getting way off topic so that's the last I'll say about it. Bill Cosby and Weinstein got busted with proof. But we also got people like chris harwick and Johnny Depp. Look at the shit depp had to put up with with amber heard. #metoo is just weaponized outrage culture. There's no political issue with me when it comes to claims. My view is that's something for the courts. Besides Anthony Weiner was a predator. And i really wanted an excuse to type Anthony Weiner.

The weird thing is, none of us left wing people defended Anthony Weiner. Or John Edwards, if you want a blast from the past. They're scumbags.

But people like Nick Rekeita grift to defend predators on their side of the aisle as a way to "own the libs."

Vic's accusers filed actual affadavits. Witness testimony is considered evidence, and have the full weight of the law on them. If they falsified affadavits, that's a serious crime. Meanwhile, Vic was deposed, and the case was still found against him.

Ultimately, neither Chris Harwick nor Johnny Depp were canceled. In fact, Depp got nowhere close to being canceled. Even Louis C.K. who legit did some fucked up things to which he admitted, is on his way back. But grifters like Rekeita make their living off being outraged that these guys could potentially be held to account in the first place.......not because they care about either the victim or the alleged harassers, but because they know they can make a buck off misogynistic assholes who want to look for any excuse to not believe women's testimony about harassment, abuse, and assault.

[s_bushido]

Not sure how that factors into this Patreon stuff, though.

To be fair, some court deciding that "this dispute has to be settled in the manner it was originally supposed to be" isn't nearly as exciting as those creaming their pants over it want it to be.

[Astalnar]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer company. Hope they go under as a lesson for the rest of Silicon giants who love to play games and walk all over their customers.