MrBeast: Illegal Rigging, Lotteries, & NDAs?

Summary

The video script delves into the controversy surrounding YouTuber MrBeast, who's accused of staging videos and running illegal lotteries. An ex-employee, DogPack404, claims MrBeast's empire is a sham, alleging scripted content and rigged outcomes. The script explores the legal implications, contrasting lotteries with contests, and discusses the potential repercussions of violating non-disclosure agreements. It also addresses the broader implications for content creators and the importance of legal counsel in navigating such disputes.

Takeaways

• 📰 MrBeast, a popular YouTuber, is facing controversy over allegations of breaking the law with his videos and giveaways.
• 💥 An ex-employee, known as DogPack404, claims that MrBeast's empire is fake, and that videos are scripted and manipulated.
• 🎁 There are accusations that MrBeast's giveaways might be illegal lotteries, potentially violating federal anti-rigging laws.
• 🤫 The ex-employee may be violating a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) by revealing behind-the-scenes information.
• 👨‍💼 MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, is famous for his philanthropic and elaborate videos with massive challenges and big giveaways.
• 📈 The controversy comes at a time when Amazon is investing heavily in the Beast Games, adding financial stakes to the situation.
• 📚 Legal definitions of lotteries, contests, and sweepstakes are discussed, highlighting the differences in legality and requirements.
• 🚨 Concerns are raised about whether MrBeast's past live streams could have been running illegal lotteries due to the lack of a free entry method.
• 📝 The importance of legal advice for content creators is emphasized, to avoid potential legal pitfalls with giveaways and contests.
• 📜 The script discusses the potential legal implications of rigging or predetermined outcomes in MrBeast's videos, and how they compare to traditional game shows.
• 🛑 MrBeast's lawyers have sent cease and desist letters to the ex-employee, indicating possible legal action for defamation or breach of contract.

Q & A

What is the controversy surrounding MrBeast's Beast Games and Amazon's investment?

The controversy is that MrBeast is facing allegations of breaking the law with his Beast Games, which is receiving a significant investment from Amazon. This comes at a time when the Beast Games are already facing their own issues.

What are the claims made by the ex-employee against MrBeast's empire?

The ex-employee, known as DogPack404, claims that MrBeast's empire is fake, alleging that many aspects of his videos, including train tracks, bus wheels, explosions, and participants, are CGI or digitally manipulated, and that giveaways may be rigged.

What is the legal definition of a lottery according to the FTC?

According to the FTC, a lottery is defined by three elements: consideration (payment to participate), a prize (something of value), and chance (the winner is determined by luck). If all three elements are present without regulation, it is likely illegal in the United States.

How does a contest differ from a lottery in legal terms?

A contest differs from a lottery in that it is not based on chance but rather on skill or intellect. This is why it is generally legal to have a prize for a contest even when there is an entry fee, as it does not constitute a lottery.

What are the allegations regarding MrBeast's giveaways being illegal lotteries?

The allegations claim that MrBeast's giveaways, which involved selling items with a chance to win prizes, were run as illegal lotteries because they required a purchase for entry and did not offer a free method of participation.

What is the difference between a sweepstakes and a raffle?

A sweepstakes is a game where a person is chosen randomly to win a prize without giving consideration to enter. A raffle involves buying tickets with different numbers, some of which are later chosen to win prizes, typically organized by nonprofits for social purposes.

Why might MrBeast have changed the rules during a live stream giveaway?

MrBeast might have changed the rules during a live stream giveaway to make the event more engaging or to respond to the dynamics of the live situation, but such changes could potentially violate the rules of a legal giveaway if they were not disclosed properly.

What is the potential legal consequence if MrBeast's giveaways were found to be illegal lotteries?

If MrBeast's giveaways were found to be illegal lotteries, he could face legal repercussions, including fines and potential cessation of such practices, similar to the Ironman triathlon organization case.

What is the role of the Department of Justice in the context of illegal lotteries?

The Department of Justice can investigate and take action against organizations or individuals conducting illegal lotteries, as seen in the case of the World Triathlon Corp, which had to forfeit millions and cease the lottery practice.

What are the implications of MrBeast's ex-employee's claims of rigged videos and illegal activities?

The implications of the ex-employee's claims include potential damage to MrBeast's reputation, legal challenges, and a deeper scrutiny of his business practices, including the legitimacy of his giveaways and the use of participants in his videos.

What is the potential legal issue with DogPack404's statements if he violated an NDA?

If DogPack404 violated an NDA by disclosing confidential information, he could face a breach of contract lawsuit and be held liable for any damages caused to MrBeast's reputation or business.

Outlines

00:00

😲 MrBeast's Empire Under Scrutiny

The video script discusses the controversy surrounding MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson), a popular YouTuber known for his philanthropic and elaborate videos. The controversy involves allegations that MrBeast's videos are fake, with an ex-employee claiming that aspects of his videos are CGI or scripted. The ex-employee, known as DogPack404, also accuses MrBeast of running illegal lotteries through his giveaways. The script delves into the legal implications of these claims, contrasting lotteries with contests and sweepstakes, and discusses the potential legal repercussions for MrBeast and the ex-employee, who may have violated a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) by sharing company information.

05:01

📚 Legal Analysis of MrBeast's Giveaways

This paragraph provides a deeper legal analysis of MrBeast's giveaways, focusing on the distinction between legal contests and illegal lotteries. It explains the three elements that define a lottery: consideration, a prize, and chance. The script mentions a specific incident from 2020 where MrBeast sold T-shirts with a promise of additional prizes, which could be construed as an illegal lottery due to the absence of a no-purchase-necessity clause. The paragraph also references past legal cases, such as the Ironman triathlon organization's illegal lottery, to illustrate the consequences of such practices.

10:03

📜 The Complexity of Legal Consideration in Giveaways

The script explores the concept of 'consideration' in the context of giveaways and lotteries. It explains that consideration can be non-monetary, such as effort or registration, and discusses the legal thresholds for what constitutes substantial effort. The paragraph examines MrBeast's practices, including a phone giveaway contingent on channel subscriptions, and assesses whether these actions could be considered illegal lotteries based on the law of North Carolina, where MrBeast is based. The analysis also considers the possibility of MrBeast's videos containing both contests and sweepstakes, and how they might be perceived under the law.

15:04

🎥 The Reality Behind MrBeast's Videos

This section addresses allegations that MrBeast's videos are not random and may be rigged, with the ex-employee claiming that contestants are often friends, family, or employees. The script discusses the logistics of MrBeast's video production and the challenges of finding participants, suggesting that the use of known individuals does not necessarily imply rigging. It also touches on the legal implications of rigging a contest, highlighting the difference between the rules given to contestants and those presented in the final video.

20:05

📝 Legal Implications of Contest Manipulation

The script delves into the legal implications of manipulating contest outcomes, referencing a lawsuit against the TV show 'Survivor' for allegedly prearranging outcomes. It discusses the federal law 47 USC 509, which regulates contests run by broadcasters and their sponsors, and explains the FCC's rules on contest disclosure. The paragraph refutes claims that MrBeast's videos violate this law, as it does not apply to online content, and highlights the importance of understanding legal context and the First Amendment rights protecting online content creators.

25:07

🚫 DogPack404's Legal Vulnerability

This paragraph discusses the potential legal consequences for DogPack404, who has been accused of violating an NDA and making defamatory statements about MrBeast. The script explains the purpose of NDAs and the legal recourse available for breach of contract. It also addresses the possibility of a non-disparagement clause within the NDA and the potential for civil lawsuits resulting from DogPack404's public statements. The paragraph concludes with speculation about the law firm representing MrBeast and the potential repercussions for DogPack404.

🌌 Nebula: A Creator-Owned Streaming Platform

The final paragraph shifts focus to Nebula, a streaming platform created by the script's author and other YouTubers. It promotes Nebula as an ad-free platform offering exclusive content and early access to videos from its creators. The script discusses the end of a partnership with Curiosity Stream and encourages viewers to sign up directly to support the creators. It also mentions the availability of lifetime memberships and the investment in high-quality original content, positioning Nebula as an alternative to traditional Hollywood productions.

Keywords

💡Controversy

Controversy refers to a situation that has aroused public debate or disagreement. In the context of the video, MrBeast is facing controversy due to allegations of breaking the law and staging his videos, which challenges the authenticity of his online persona and activities.

💡Investment

Investment is the commitment of money or capital to a project or venture with the expectation of obtaining a profit. The video discusses Amazon's potential investment in the Beast Games, indicating a significant financial backing that is now clouded by the surrounding controversy.

💡Ex-employee

An ex-employee is a former worker of a company. In the video, an ex-employee is central to the controversy, as they claim that MrBeast's empire is based on deception, including faked videos and illegal activities, which is a key element of the narrative.

💡CGI

CGI stands for Computer-Generated Imagery, a technique used to create visual content for media. The script mentions CGI to highlight allegations that certain elements of MrBeast's videos, such as explosions and vehicles, are digitally fabricated, not real.

💡Giveaways

Giveaways refer to items or prizes that are given away, often for free or in contests. The video discusses MrBeast's frequent giveaways, which are a staple of his content, but are now under scrutiny for potentially being illegal lotteries.

💡Illegal Lotteries

Illegal lotteries are contests that offer prizes based on chance without proper regulation or licensing. The video script raises the question of whether MrBeast's giveaways could be considered illegal lotteries due to the lack of a free method of participation.

💡Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA)

An NDA is a legal contract that establishes a confidential relationship between parties, restricting the sharing of certain information. The video mentions the potential violation of an NDA by an ex-employee, which could have legal repercussions separate from the allegations of illegal activities.

💡Philanthropy

Philanthropy is the act of promoting the welfare of others, often through the donation of money to good causes. MrBeast is known for his philanthropic videos, which are a significant part of his brand and are contrasted with the allegations of illegality and deception.

💡Sweepstakes

Sweepstakes are a type of promotion where a prize is awarded based on chance, but participants do not need to provide consideration to enter. The script distinguishes between sweepstakes and lotteries, noting that sweepstakes can be legal under certain conditions, unlike the potentially illegal lotteries that MrBeast is accused of running.

💡Rigging

Rigging refers to the act of manipulating a game or contest to produce a predetermined outcome. The video discusses allegations of rigging in MrBeast's videos, suggesting that the outcomes may not be as spontaneous or fair as they appear.

💡Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle is a nickname for the speaker in the video, who is a lawyer and provides legal analysis and commentary. The term is used to introduce the speaker's expertise and to frame the discussion of the legal implications of the controversy surrounding MrBeast.

Highlights

MrBeast facing controversy over allegations of breaking the law with his empire and Beast Games.

An ex-employee claims that MrBeast's empire is fake, with scripted videos and CGI elements.

Controversy suggests MrBeast's giveaways might be illegal lotteries and violate federal anti-rigging laws.

Legal analysis of the difference between lotteries, contests, sweepstakes, and raffles in the U.S.

MrBeast's 2020 live stream accused of conducting 46 illegal lotteries with a retail value of over $47,000.

Discussion on the importance of offering a free method of participation in giveaways to avoid lottery rules.

Ironman triathlon organization's illegal lottery case and its settlement with the Department of Justice.

Consideration in lotteries does not necessarily need to be monetary, effort can also qualify.

MrBeast's videos often feature massive challenges, expensive stunts, and big giveaways to over 300 million subscribers.

Analysis of whether MrBeast's use of friends or acquaintances in videos constitutes rigging.

Legal implications of changing rules mid-contest in MrBeast's videos and potential contract breaches.

Upper Echelon's claim that MrBeast's videos may violate federal contest regulations, debunked.

Potential legal issues for the ex-employee, DogPack404, regarding defamation and violation of NDA.

Explanation of NDAs, their purpose, and the legal consequences of violating them.

The Streisand effect and its potential impact on MrBeast's situation with the ex-employee's allegations.

Nebula platform promotion for high-quality, ad-free, and exclusive content from creators.

Transcripts

- 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 has 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 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 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 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 kind

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.