MrBeast Controversy: Allegations, Laws, and NDAs

MrBeast faces controversy as ex-employee alleges fake videos and illegal lotteries, prompting cease and desist letters, raising questions about legality and NDA violation.

### MrBeast Controversy: Allegations of Fake Videos and Illegal Lotteries
* 🎥 MrBeast, known for philanthropic videos, is facing controversy as ex-employee DogPack404 alleges **fake giveaways, rigged videos, illegal lotteries, and fake signatures**.
* 🎰 The FTC defines a lottery as having three elements: **consideration, a prize, and chance**, with lotteries in the US exclusively run by the government.
* 💸 During a 2020 livestream, MrBeast allegedly offered **46 illegal lotteries** worth **over $47,000**, with **no free method of entry available**.
* 📝 MrBeast's videos are claimed to be rigged, with contestants often being **friends, family, or employees**, potentially impacting the **outcome of challenges**.
* 🏆 Upper Echelon claims MrBeast's videos may violate 47 USC 509, a law regulating contests, but this law only applies to **TV and radio broadcasts**, not **online content**.
* 🔒 MrBeast's lawyers sent cease and desist letters to DogPack404, alleging **defamation and violation of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)**.
* 📜 The NDA dispute may hinge on whether DogPack404 witnessed any **illegal activity**, as NDAs generally cannot be used to conceal **illegal actions**.
* 💼 The legal analysis highlights the **complexities of YouTube content creation**, **contract law**, and the **challenges of regulating online media**.

- Trouble in Beastland? MrBeast is facing controversy
on several different fronts, and all this comes at a terrible time, right when Amazon is
investing potentially hundreds of millions of dollars
into the Beast Games, which is facing its own controversy. Now, a lot of this is outside of my field, but people are claiming
that MrBeast broke the law and that that is my bat
signal, or eagle signal. From Feastables to the Beast Games, he can do it all. Or can he? An ex-employee is making waves by claiming that everything about
MrBeast's empire is fake. - If what we did was scripted, holy shit,
this stuff would be easy to pump out. - Have you ever faked a video? - No. - But this train track is
CGI. These bus wheels are CGI. This explosion is fake.
This shredder is CGI. This car is digitally
lifted. This pit is fake.

This guy is fake. This raccoon is a paid actor. And it doesn't stop there. There are claims that Mr. Beast's frequent giveaways are actually illegal lotteries, and that Mr. Beast's contests run afoul of federal anti-rigging laws. And looking at the other side, the ex-employee may have signed a non-disclosure agreement, which he might be violating by producing his videos. Is he gonna be in trouble too? Well, to understand all this, you have to understand who MrBeast is and what a MrBeast video is. Well, MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, is known for his elaborate and philanthropic videos. His videos often feature massive challenges, expensive stunts, and big giveaways. MrBeast has over 300 million subscribers, and he's expanded his empire to candy bars and cheeseburgers, and will soon host a game show on Amazon Prime.

And now an ex-employee claims that MrBeast fakes his videos
and runs illegal lotteries. The man who goes by
DogPack404 on Twitter alleged that MrBeast's company
engaged in fake giveaways, rigged videos, ran illegal lotteries, and sold fake signatures. Though according to Chucky Applebee, who runs MrBeast's Ideas
and Thumbnails team, the man worked for MrBeast
for less than a month before he was fired for erratic behavior. But the former worker
started a YouTube channel and produced a video alleging that MrBeast runs illegal lotteries. And obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just gonna show you the law and then show you irrefutable
evidence of what's being done, and you can make your own conclusions. The FTC defines a lottery as
containing three elements. And here he's mostly correct about the legal elements of a lottery. This varies state by state.

but most jurisdictions define a lottery as having three elements: consideration, which is
payment to participate; a prize, which must be something of value; and chance, which means that the winner
is determined by luck. If all three of these elements are present and the lottery is not regulated, it is likely illegal because lotteries in the United States are
exclusively run by the government. Now, this is in contrast to what I'll generally call a contest, which is not based on chance
so much as skill or intellect, and that's why it's generally legal to have a prize for a contest even when there's an entry fee, because it's not based on chance and therefore does not
constitute a lottery. Lotteries are distinct from
sweepstakes and raffles, which are illegal. Sweepstakes are games where
a person is chosen randomly to win a prize and sweepstakes participants
do not give consideration to enter. Now, we'll talk more
about this in a second.

but the reason a sweepstakes
is generally allowable in the context of buying
something to enter is that there is an option to
enter the same sweepstakes without a purchase necessary. And a raffle is an activity
in which people buy tickets with different numbers, some of which are later
chosen to win prizes. It's organized in order to make money for a good social purpose. And raffles are generally only legal when they're conducted by nonprofits. So let's go back to the video that people are claiming
is an illegal lottery. During a 2020 live stream, the MrBeast Crew sold
limited edition T-shirts that cost $42. The sign in the background
says Buy a shirt and I'll sign it. - For those of you who are
just joining, if you buy one of our limited edition
40 mil special shirts, we're celebrating 40 million subscribers with a really big video,
then we will sign that shirt and some of them will get
random prizes like this.

- So the parameters of the offer were that a fan buys an autographed T-shirt, and they get the possibility
of winning a prize. The winners were supposed
to be chosen randomly at different intervals, but
Mr. Beast changed the rules of the giveaway midstream. - They would say something like, Buy in the next five
minutes for a chance to win, and then seven minutes later go, Actually the newest order
in 30 seconds is gonna win. - DogPack says that during
the six-hour live stream, Mr. Beast offered 46 illegal lotteries with a retail value of over $47,000. Now, typically when you review
the terms and conditions of a giveaway like this one, the first disclaimer you'll
see is the statement, no purchase necessary. That's how you get
around the lottery rules. You offer people a way to participate in the sweepstakes without having to purchase anything. Now, MrBeast's six-hour live
streams look a little sloppy.

They're not like the
MrBeast videos of today. The full video isn't available anymore, so we don't know whether there
was a disclaimer in the video or in the description, but it does look like a purchase was required, and there was no free way to enter. So in some jurisdictions, MrBeast probably would've been
running an illegal lottery, and if true, he probably
wouldn't be alone. This was, frankly, pretty common
on YouTube back in the day, and it's also common for YouTubers
to get legal advice later after they become more successful. Remember, kids, talk to your
lawyer early and often. We can often save you a ton
of headache in the future, but not offering a free method
of participation is a pitfall that I've seen a lot of YouTubers do when it comes to giveaways or bonuses. It's so common, in fact,
that a very large YouTuber,

CaptainSparklez even admitted to doing the same thing while he was talking about this MrBeast situation. - I will admit to something here that may be past the statute of limitations, but the way that I found out about illegal lotteries to begin with is because I accidentally did one. - You know, if it were me, even if it were super common, I would not admit to breaking the law on camera. But you know, you do you. That's more work for lawyers in the future. And a lot of private companies have gotten in trouble for doing the same kind of giveaway. The Department of Justice concluded that the Ironman triathlon organization conducted an illegal lottery by charging athletes $50 for a chance to compete in its world championship. So the World Triathlon Corp, which runs Ironman, also encouraged people to pay an additional $50 to purchase memberships in a club that would increase their chances of getting into the championship race.

They didn't offer a refund to people whose entries weren't chosen, and gave them no future
credit towards registration for those that were chosen. And the company ran this
promotion for decades between 1983 and 2015. But as a result, the company agreed to forfeit the $2.76 million
that they had collected and ceased the lottery practice, though it denied any wrongdoing. Now, there is one more interesting wrinkle when it comes to Mr.
Beast potentially engaging in illegal lottery. Now, we talked about the
different elements of a lottery. You have to have the element of chance. There has to be a prize,
but also the people looking to participate in the have
to offer consideration. Now, consideration for the purposes of lotteries is often construed narrowly. It does not need to include money. If a person has to make
an effort to register, this can constitute
consideration under the law. So for example, if you
pay $42 for a T-shirt

in exchange for the chance to win a prize, you've definitely provided consideration. And likewise, if you have
to complete a long survey or make several trips to the store, many regulatory authorities also say that you've made a significant
effort to get into a lottery. But not everything
qualifies as consideration. If you mail a postcard
to enter into a contest, the 50 cents postage does not count as consideration in most jurisdictions. So in another one of MrBeast's giveaways, he purchased a thousand Samsung phones and gave them away randomly to people who subscribed to his channel. Now, whether this is an illegal lottery or a legal sweepstakes, depends on whether the state
law construes subscribing to the channel as consideration. Now in North Carolina
where MrBeast is based, if the promotion includes
a purchase, payment, or substantial effort and is a game of chance
resulting in a prize, then it's likely an illegal lottery. If it's non-monetary consideration,

the person would have to make a substantial degree of effort for it to be considered consideration. In the past, substantial effort examples include attending an all-day sales presentation or going to a scavenger hunt, but simply watching a TV program or visiting a location one time was not considered substantial effort in North Carolina. So I could definitely see a North Carolina court saying that simply pressing the subscribe button does not qualify as a substantial effort necessary to make a consideration. Now, what makes this situation even more complicated is that sometimes MrBeast's videos contain both a contest and a sweepstakes. So take, for example, the video, 100 Boys Vs 100 Girls for $500,000. Here are the rules. - [MrBeast] I built two massive circles and put 100 boys in one and 100 girls in the other. And whichever circle has more people after 100 hours wins $500,000. - So if any player steps on the red line,

they're eliminated from the game. And during the 100 hours,
MrBeast tempted the players with various offers like
giving one of the guys $10,000 for solving a Rubik's Cube. - [MrBeast] We're gonna
offer the one guy in there that knows how to solve them
$10,000 to leave right now. - He also offered the girls a free car if they agreed to leave. - If Chris scratches
it, it's coming with it. You don't have to get out. But whenever you do, your
brand new car's right there. - Now that video was sponsored
by a company called Current, and that company offered
a separate sweepstakes. It looks like by the time of this video, which comes two years later,
MrBeast either lawyered up or learned his lesson because it seems like he
knew what he was doing in this particular video because this video allows participation in the sweepstakes without purchase.

The description reads, No purchase or payment necessary to enter or win. Void outside the US and where prohibited, et cetera, et cetera. More legalese. So the contestants, the viewers did not have to
join Current, the video sponsor, to enter into that particular sweepstakes. It links to other terms and conditions, and people had an opportunity
to review the official rules, determine how the prize
would be allocated. So it looks like sometime
in the last four years, MrBeast got his act together and started complying
with anti-lottery rules. Now obviously if you're
running an illegal lottery, you'll want a good lawyer. But if you want a great lawyer, my law firm, the Eagle Team, can help. If you've suffered a data breach, especially if you've got a letter saying that your social security
number had been leaked, if you were involved in a car crash or have an immigration issue or just about anything
else, we can represent you.

or help find you the right attorney because it's so important to
talk to a lawyer right away. So you maximize your recovery and find out what your options are. So just click on the
link in the description or call the phone number on screen for a free consultation with my team. Because you don't just need a legal team, you need the Eagle Team. So click on the link below. But many are conflating the old video of MrBeast offering a
prize for buying a T-shirt, which arguably does constitute a lottery, with all MrBeast videos that
happen to involve prizes in general. But these are very different situations, and the analysis is different too. MrBeast is known for
giving subscribers a chance to take part in his videos, and DogPack takes issue with
this, arguing they quote, So yeah, the random subscribers you see in challenges are actually never random. They're almost always local to MrBeast and oftentimes friends and
family of MrBeast employees.

or just the employees themselves. - And he highlights some specific videos he says, backs up his claims, specifically the video Boys
Vs Girls for $500,000. He says the whole thing was rigged because the contestants
weren't random subscribers. - Let's look at this video. Not only were the results of
this video completely scripted, but the contestants are
not random subscribers. - [MrBeast] So many people had jobs. - Oh, that contestant had
to get out for her job? I guess you forgot she's
your hiring manager. I actually recognize a lot
of people in this video, including Jimmy's own girlfriend. - Chucky Applebee acknowledged that some of the players were friends or employees. The employees in the video were there to fill in for people who tested positive for COVID last minute,
right before filming. Thea, Jimmy's girlfriend mentioned this on a podcast over a year ago. If it wasn't for COVID, they
would not have been in it.

They had the same money on
the line as everyone else. And DogPack also said that
he received text messages from another Beast worker who
said they had to rig the game so that the boys didn't win by so much. - According to a former MrBeast employee, it would've been a PR problem
if the boys had won by a lot. And because so many of the female contestants
were MrBeast employees who got out immediately,
production stepped in to actually make the results
of the challenge closer. - And there's absolutely nothing
illegal about using friends or acquaintances in your videos, and it doesn't necessarily follow that just because MrBeast
might have known some of the people who appeared in his videos that he rigged the videos in their favor. Now, your mileage may vary
as to whether it's a good or bad look to include friends and videos where there's
money on the line. Now, arguably, you might conclude that if the video makes it appear

that every contestant is random, and it turns out that that's not the case, then it makes it more
likely that the outcome is rigged in their favor. MrBeast, after all, might
want to patronize his friends. But you might also conclude
that there is no connection between the identity of the
contestants and the outcome. Now, I haven't reviewed
every single MrBeast video. I have a life. Personally, I think this is
probably closer to the truth, but I can see how people
might feel deceived. And as it happens, I happen
to know several people who have appeared in MrBeast videos. Again, because he needed
someone to fill in at the last second, and
they happened to be nearby. In fact, you might know
them, Dave the Agent, and Patrick Willems. I can tell you, the video was not rigged
in their favor at all. They happened to be taking a
tour of MrBeast's facilities.

and got pegged to fill
in at the last moment to put an entire GameStop
inside of a triangle. They actually succeeded. And they've told me that
everyone was shocked that they were able to do it. - Everyone's gotta let
go at the same time. 3, 2, 1. Everyone let go. Everyone let go. No one touching it? - No way.
- No one. - Oh, congratulations. - It was definitely not
rigged or predetermined. Now, I can't speak to
all of MrBeast's videos, but at least one instance
where he knew the contestants, the video was certainly not rigged. And I do know that logistically since many of MrBeast's videos are filmed in his hometown of
Greenfield, North Carolina, it's often hard to fill all
of the spots for his videos. And I also know that MrBeast and his team invest in hundreds
or thousands of cameras.

producers and video editors
to be able to record and cull through thousands
of hours of footage for his videos. And my feeling is that MrBeast
will do whatever's possible to make the most engaging and
entertaining video possible. But I certainly can't speak
to every video he's ever made, nor can I speak to the
audience expectations of the videos that he does make. But let's say that the videos were rigged, completely manipulated, and predetermined, would that be illegal? DogPack alleges that
MrBeast rigged the game so that the boys didn't win by so much. MrBeast changed the rules or offered different challenges
throughout the 100 hours. At one point, he says he wanted to make the game more
competitive by trying to induce more boys to drop out. And in one sense, you know,
duh, this is a MrBeast video. He makes various offers and changes the rules to make
things more entertaining.

He manipulates the events to add drama, much like any game show where things occur to make things interesting. But here, let's make a distinction. There are the rules as laid out to the contestants before they participate and the rules as laid out in the video. Now, you can imagine that the contract between the contestant and I don't know, Beast Enterprises lays out certain terms for the relationship. Now, I've never seen one of those contracts. My guess is that it gives Beast Enterprises quite a lot of flexibility to deal with the contestant. But if they breach those terms, then they might be liable for breach of contract or maybe even fraud. And then there are the terms that show up in the final video after the filming. Those might not be the same. Now, whether you're allowed to change the rules in the video largely depends on how much freedom you have in the rules in your contract with a contestant.

Now remember this because we'll
come back to it in a second. Now, following up on the
allegations from DogPack. YouTuber Upper Echelon claim that MrBeast videos are
just flat out illegal. For example, Rosanna Pansino was featured in a MrBeast competition
series called Creator Games, which pits YouTube
personalities against each other in games like Hide and Seek. She claimed that MrBeast
selectively edited the video to make it appear that she did
not finish in the top three, and instead they made it look
like Logan Paul did finish in the top three. - [Upper Echelon] Survivor,
despite being mentioned by this alleged former
employee in passing, has a particularly relevant
lawsuit brought forward by a contestant of season
one, where she alleges that producers of the
show engaged in a scheme to prearrange outcomes by
persuading, influencing, or intimidating contestants.

- And she claimed that MrBeast changed the rules. Originally, they were told they couldn't hide in the ceiling, but the winner was allowed to hide in the ceiling. Now, Upper Echelon claims that MrBeast did exactly the same thing that landed the TV show Survivor in legal hot water. - [Upper Echelon] 47 USC 509, which pertains to prohibited practices in contests of knowledge, skill, or chance. - Now, whether you think it's a good idea to use clever editing or manipulating the rules to change the outcome is not the same thing as necessarily being against the law. But Upper Echelon points to a lawsuit by season one Survivor contestant Stacey Stillman, who was the third person ever voted off the series. - Well, the weather has spoken and the tribe has spoken. It's time for you to go. - However, she later alleged that the show creator

Mark Burnett actually orchestrated her demise. She claims that Burnett intervened in the game by convincing two of her teammates to vote her off the island rather than a contestant who had been a fan favorite, Rudy Boesch. Boesch was a gruff, former Navy Seal who was quick with one liners. The only reason I'd bring a Bible is if, I mean I'm religious too, if I needed toilet paper. Burnett allegedly believed that Rudy was better for ratings than Stillman and Boesch later placed third in the game. Stillman is a lawyer, so she sued for fraud, breach of contract, and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code 7,200 with a predicate being 47 USC 509. Now the parties settled before trial as most lawsuits do, but the interesting thing about Stillman's complaint is that she claimed that Burnett violated 47 USC 509, which is a federal law that regulates contests.

that are run by TV and radio broadcasters and their sponsors. It says, It shall be
unlawful for any person with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public to supply any contestant in a purportedly bonafide
contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill, any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in
whole or in part prearranged or predetermined by means
of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise to induce or cause any contestant in any
purportedly bonafide contest of intellectual knowledge
or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest whereby
the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part
predetermined or prearranged or three, to engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a
purportedly bonafide contest of an intellectual knowledge,
intellectual skill or chance.

This is the basis for the FCC's contest rule, which provides that it's illegal to predetermine or prearrange the outcome of a contest or to broadcast a predetermined or prearranged contest. It stems from a series of quiz shows in the 1950s that were absolutely rigged, and in fact, there's a great Ray Fines movie about this particular situation. But the FCC requires broadcasters to disclose rules and policies applicable to their contests, including the method of entry, eligibility restrictions, entry deadlines, prize restrictions, winner selection procedures, and the value of the prize. And after analyzing the statute, Upper Echelon points to a situation in the Boys Vs Girls video that he claims runs afoul. In particular, he points to a situation where MrBeast tried to coax one of the boys who knew how to solve a Rubik's Cube from leaving the contest to make it more fair to the other contestants.

who did not know how
to solve a Rubik's Cube in the Rubik's Cube's challenge. - [Upper Echelon]. I can't personally say at what specific point in time a creator who owns a media company
that is 10 or 20 times larger and more successful than mainstream broadcast
television networks becomes liable under those same rules. - So yeah, seems like
manipulation may be in the service of predetermining the outcome, but the FCC does not
regulate radio or television that is not broadcast over the airwaves. Its website even says, The FCC does not regulate online content. The reason for this is
the First Amendment. You're generally allowed to
produce whatever kind of TV show you want or YouTube video that you want. It was thought and still is
that when it came to shows that were broadcast over
the air before cable TV or largely the internet, because that was a limited
resource, the argument went.

the government had more say
over what could be broadcast. That's why there's always
been so much more cursing and nudity on HBO and not NBC. HBO has never been regulated by the FCC. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when
there were only a handful, like three TV stations, and you needed an antenna
to be able to receive them. Luckily, we have evolved
from this barbarity. So Upper Echelon's
video incorrectly claims that MrBeast's video ran afoul of this law cited in
the Stillman complaint, 47 USC 509, prohibited practices in contests of knowledge,
skill, or chance. - [Upper Echelon] Which
deceived the audience, fulfilling basically every single part of this law at one time or another. From what I can tell, in my
opinion, to the very letter. - Yeah, that's just wrong. The law does not apply to satellite radio.

the internet or cable. Now, I don't mean to cast
aspersions on this YouTuber. He's upfront about the fact
that he's not a lawyer. But this is what often
makes the law so difficult. You can find something
that looks like it applies, but it's wildly out of context
and is basically irrelevant. That's why people need lawyers. Now, ironically, a commenter to this video who claims to be a lawyer,
chimed into proclaim that, Those laws do in fact
apply to YouTube as well. I've actually dealt with it personally and it doesn't end well for the accused. This person later says
that they've been a lawyer for all of seven months. And, I've already seen so
many cases and it's sick. Now I saw this and it took a second. Was I wrong? Did I learn
nothing in law school? That really doesn't seem accurate
in the context of the US.

Then I kept reading the comments from this lawyer. It's universal, all the ground need to follow is that it was broadcast live. There are exceptions, but this is pretty clear. At least that's how it stands in Canada. Oh. Okay. This is why you don't trust randos on the internet, especially when they claim to be lawyers. Absolutely nothing this person says is true. Maybe that's the law in Canada, but not here. This law does not apply to YouTubers because they stream over the internet. It just doesn't apply. And in any event, the Stillman lawsuit settled, so we don't even know how a jury would've found. And it appears that the FCC never even investigated Survivor for the 509 violation based on her claims. And I don't wanna belabor the point, but arguably the terms of the law might not even apply. It's not clear that the manipulating the activities

of a contest would necessarily count as predetermining the outcome. And it's not clear that
the various contests or games of skill or intellect
that would be covered anyway. And often there's nothing secretive about what MrBeast is
doing in the video contest. He says what he's gonna
do and then he does it. As you probably know, game
shows often change the stakes all the time, even on
broadcast television. Now, whether any of the
contestants have a claim for breach of contract or fraud depends
on what was in their contract before they agreed to
appear in a MrBeast video. Now, I don't know the
terms, so I can't say, but I'd be shocked if
they didn't give MrBeast and Beast Enterprises a
huge amount of freedom in what they can do or
not do during the video. And furthermore, that
would be a civil claim of the contestant versus
Beast Enterprises.

It's not a law that is broken. Maybe that's pedantic, but it's not illegal to
breach a contract anyway. Now, ironically, it might be DogPack404 who's in hot legal water. MrBeast's lawyers have sent
two cease and desist letters to the ex-worker. The letters allege that his
statements are defamatory and violated his confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement. Now, generally, I hate these kinds of strong-arm tactics to silence critics. This is exactly what Logan
Paul is currently doing with Coffezilla. But the situation might
be theoretically different from a legal perspective. This isn't just some critical third party, but a person who was an employee. They had a direct contractual relationship with MrBeast. So the contract terms
will be just as important as the general law on defamation. Now, as you probably know,
a non-disclosure agreement or NDA is a legal contract
between at least two parties that outlines confidential
material, knowledge

or information that the
parties wish to share with each other for certain purposes, but want to restrict from wider access. The NDA essentially creates
a confidential relationship between the parties to
protect information covered by the NDA, and usually that's
any type of confidential or proprietary information
or trade secrets. In this video, YouTuber SomeOrdinaryGamer, explain the purpose of an NDA. - I hired you at our company, right? And I told you a secret about, you know, something we're doing a month from now, a production that we have coming out in the next two, three months. If we hire you to be the
editor for that video, and we told you, Hey, don't
leak any of this at all, not a single ounce of footage. We want this to for you to edit. We want you to put these videos together and we want you to, you know,
basically have these ready.

to go up on our actual
collaborative channel. If you decided to leak that footage, it would be well within our
right to take you to court. - Now, Mutahar's right that
a company could sue a person who violated an NDA by disclosing things about that production if those things are within
the scope of the NDA. And he is generally right that
an NDA cannot compel a person not to disclose a crime. If an NDA attempts to prevent someone from reporting illegal activities, the NDA might be considered void if it violates public policy. However, what constitutes a violation of public policy varies substantially according to the jurisdiction. Some states have adopted laws that strike non-disclosure provisions, which prohibit employees from disclosing unlawful
employment practices such as discrimination,
harassment, or fraud. North Carolina, where MrBeast is based, has not adopted such a law. The issue really becomes whether
DogPack witnessed anything that would be against
public policy in the state

that governs the NDA. So while it's true that NDAs
generally cannot be used to conceal illegal activities,
the person really has to have evidence of at
least illegal activity that would be considered
against public policy to have an NDA against. And it doesn't seem like
DogPack has made any statements of witnessing anything firsthand that MrBeast did anything
that was against the law. And now MrBeast's lawyers
have sent two cease and desist letters to DogPack. He appeared on Oompaville's show and declared that he isn't scared. How do you feel about
that? Do you feel nervous? I would be shitting myself if I were you. No, I'm not shitting myself. Now, generally I would agree. A cease and desist letter
doesn't mean anything except the sender wants you to stop. But if he did disclose information that was covered by the NDA,
then he could be in trouble.

Now, it would be a breach of contract claim. So it's not against the law to violate your NDA, but it does mean you can be sued civilly for a breach of contract, and there's no doubt that he's causing MrBeast reputational harm. Whether that's warranted is up to you. But the NDA could also contain a non-disparagement clause. A non-disparagement clause prevents a signatory from disparaging the other party for a certain amount of time, even if the things that they say are true or non-confidential. This clause is meant to stop the parties from making public or private comments that could harm the reputation or business interests of the other party, especially in a situation like this where the person can truthfully say that they were an employee for a limited amount of time to add authority to their claims. Now, disparagement is not the same as defamation. Defamation generally applies

when these statements are false. Disparagement just means
saying something negative about the other person, even if it's a hundred percent correct. So if DogPack's NDA has a
non-disparagement clause that's still in effect, he
could be in a lot of trouble because he's been doing
a lot of disparaging, even if you assume that
everything he says is 100% true. Now, DogPack redacted
the name of the law firm in the cease and desist letter, only quoting a portion
of the firm's website. And some have suggested that the cease and desist letters were from
the law firm, Quinn Emanuel, and the name of the firm,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan fits the
amount of space in the cease and desist letter that
DogPack shared on Twitter. Now, if so, these are not
lawyers you wanna mess with. I personally never met a lawyer from Quinn who wasn't a huge asshole.

often in a way that's counterproductive to their client, but still they have a reputation for scorched earth litigation. But on the other hand, with respect to the NDA, it seems like most of what DogPack has disclosed was already in the public and is based on accounts from other people, not what he witnessed firsthand. He certainly used his status as an ex-employee to make it seem like he has inside knowledge. But from what I've seen, he seems to be largely relaying what other people are talking about rather than using his own firsthand knowledge. But without knowing the terms of the NDA, it's hard to say how much trouble DogPack might be in. But on the other hand, it might not be a good look to sue a critic out of existence, another fellow YouTuber. Plus, it just creates more of a Streisand effect too. But love them or hate him, if you're tired of seeing all the MrBeast clones on YouTube,

you can see the best videos from the highest quality creators
on today's sponsored Nebula. And it's your last chance to sign up before the price increases
on September 1st. Because Nebula is the streaming
platform that my friends and I created from scratch
to host our exclusive videos and special projects. On Nebula, you can watch all
of our videos ad-free and early because our videos always
go up on Nebula first. Plus, there's tons of exclusive content. And for a limited time, you
can get a lifetime membership. You can buy once and then never again. It's the greatest deal of all. And I know tens of
thousands of you sign up for Nebula using the
Curiosity Stream bundle, but unfortunately that's over. Curiosity Stream has informed us and even included in
their latest SEC filing that they're not going
to pay us bundle revenue through 2024. That means that my fellow Nebula creators

and I won't get any money
from those who signed up for the Curiosity Stream bundle. So the bundle's breaking,
and you're not gonna be able to have access to Nebula
anymore after 2024. But if you want to support this channel, the only way to ensure that
that money that you spend on Nebula goes to us directly
is to sign up directly. And if you're new here, Nebula includes tons of
exclusive videos from me, original series from your
favorite people, movies, plays, classes, and more, with favorites like Johnny Harris, Neo, Jet Lag, Real Life
Engineering, Real Life Lore, and your most favorite, Legal Eagle. And exclusives on Nebula
are getting really good. I've really been enjoying our new series, Jet Lag, the Getaway. It's kind of like The Amazing Race, but with some of your
favorite YouTube creators. And it's hilarious.

because the whole thing
is rigged against them, but they don't know it. You can also see my exclusive
feature-length documentary, Bad Law, Words Good, and other exclusive content, including my full-length interview with the screenwriter
of My cousin, Vinny, and my not safe for work video about lawsuits that are
too hot for YouTube. Because what's truly special about Nebula is that it's
a creator-owned platform built by me and other
YouTubers and podcasters. And because it's a subscription service, we get to work on larger,
higher budget productions than we ever could anywhere else. It's becoming the answer to the question, how do you get Hollywood
level production value without Hollywood level BS? And for those of you that
wanna share everything that Nebula has to offer
with your friends and family, Nebula is now offering annual gift cards. So if you sign up using the
link that's on screen right now,

you can give a year of Nebula to a friend for 40% off the yearly subscription. And that's a gift that you can
give to yourself, by the way, because you deserve it. So get a 40% off discount for you or a friend's yearly subscription, or check out Lifetime, where for $300 you can get
access to Nebula forever. We're investing in more big concept, high octane Nebula Originals, and your Lifetime subscription
goes towards that investment. In a way, Lifetime is the
best possible deal of all. Either way, you'll get all my videos early and get access to exclusives and support the ambitious
projects that my friends and I are working on on
our own streaming site. So sign up now and get you or
a friend 40% off of Nebula, or get the incredible Lifetime deal by clicking on the link below. And after that, click
on this box over here for Legal Eagle, or I'll see you in court.

MrBeast: Illegal Rigging, Lotteries, & NDAs?

LegalEagle

Allegations Against MrBeast: Fake Videos and Illegal Lotteries

MrBeast is facing allegations of faking videos and running illegal lotteries by an ex-employee, who claims the company engaged in rigged giveaways and sold fake signatures.

The ex-employee's accusations focus on MrBeast's live stream T-shirt giveaways, which he alleges violated lottery laws by not providing a no-purchase necessary option.

The Federal Trade Commission defines lotteries by three elements: consideration, prize, and chance, and the ex-employee claims that MrBeast's giveaways met these criteria, making them illegal.

MrBeast's early videos may have violated lottery laws by requiring a purchase for entry, a common pitfall for YouTubers at the time.

The Ironman triathlon organization also faced trouble for a similar practice, forfeiting millions of dollars.

The legality of MrBeast's giveaways depends on whether the actions required for entry constitute consideration, with the complexity increasing when videos contain both contests and sweepstakes.

MrBeast offered cash and a car to tempt players to leave a challenge, while also running a separate sweepstake to comply with anti-lottery rules.

He has been accused of rigging his challenge videos by using friends, family, and employees as contestants, allegedly to manipulate the results.

Despite the controversy, there is no clear evidence of illegal activity, but the ethical implications of MrBeast's video strategies are being widely discussed.

Allegations and Controversies Surrounding MrBeast's Videos

MrBeast's videos have faced allegations of being rigged in favor of certain contestants, but a specific instance involving Dave the Agent and Patrick Willems was denied.

The flexibility of the rules and contracts between Beast Enterprises and the contestants raises questions about the legality of rule changes in the final video.

Allegations of selective editing and prearranging outcomes have sparked controversy and even legal action, as seen in the lawsuit brought forward by a contestant of a reality show produced by MrBeast.

Allegations of Rule Manipulation by MrBeast

MrBeast was accused of changing the rules mid-competition, similar to a situation that led to a lawsuit against the TV show Survivor's creator.

The accusations are based on a federal law that prohibits the prearrangement or predetermination of contest outcomes, particularly focusing on a Boys Vs Girls video.

However, it is noted that the FCC does not regulate online content due to the First Amendment, allowing flexibility for TV and YouTube show production.

The Impact of Government Regulation on Broadcasting and YouTube Content

HBO has been able to show more cursing and nudity than network channels because it has never been regulated by the FCC.

In the early days, there were only a few TV stations available, but we have now evolved from that.

The law cited in the Stillman complaint, 47 USC 509, does not apply to YouTubers, as they operate over the internet, not through traditional broadcasting.

An NDA creates a confidential relationship to protect proprietary information and trade secrets.

Violating an NDA can lead to a breach of contract claim and civil lawsuits, causing reputational harm.

Non-disparagement clauses within an NDA can also prevent making negative but true statements about the other party, potentially leading to trouble even if the information is accurate.

Nebula is facing a revenue loss due to the termination of its bundle deal with Curiosity Stream, leading to a push for direct sign-ups to support creators.

The platform is now offering annual gift cards and a lifetime subscription option to attract new subscribers and generate long-term revenue.

Nebula's creator-owned model allows for higher budget productions and exclusive content, positioning it as a unique alternative to traditional streaming services.