Here's a question. You talk about the effort required by the consumer to constitute a consideration. But despite the consumer not losing anything, a channel is monetized based on subscriptions. Could it be argued that helping Mr. Beast's monetization constitutes consideration? It is still something of substance provided to him, even if it's not something subtracted from the consumer.
Ok, thanks to LegalEagle explaining that FCC only regulates things that are broadcast over the air, I now finally understand all those late night talk show moments where a guest says "am I allowed to say this" and the host responds "yeah, this is cable". I never knew before why the cable distinction mattered.
there are different rules for public broadcast channels vs private subscription-based broadcasts. gov't doesn't care about what Comcast's cable network broadcasts, as long as it's not illegal. but the gov't sure does mind what you say on public-funded public-access broadcasts, which is open and available for everyone to see and view
I’ve caught on with that as well. Yes one can argue that Jimmy’s Videos are either Rigged, Scripted or straight up fake, but saying that a “Raccoon” is a paid actor. That’s a bit of stretch (like elasticity stretching) which also makes it hilarious 😅
@@lte6983 dogpack said it was allegedly domesticated. And it was tossed onto the bed in the video rather than jumping up which is, allegedly, potentially 'borderline mistreatment' as well according to him. EDIT: Correction, the exact phrasing was borderline mistreatment, I've corrected the statement. This comes from from dogpack's interview with Oompaville. Dogpack did say that though, at roughly the 9:30 mark of the video "MrBeast Drama Got Complicated" on oompaville's channel. Here is the full quote I did my best to write it down: "In reality it's much worse than being a paid actor. Yeah it's a domestic racoon they brought to the set and they were like sorta treating it like a prop they were putting it in the ceiling and then pretending like you know they just discovered it. But then there's a scene where somebody off camera takes the racoon and like throws it onto the bed. And I'm sure you could pull this clip up. The edit is very strange because there is a zoom in and pan up so it like hides the fact that the racoon is going on the bed, uh, but what it's really doing is it's hiding the fact that someone is throwing the racoon. Then there's a voiceover of Jimmy in post saying 'Oh man, the racoon just ran in the hotel', or whatever and they're all screaming at it and shit so it's like, almost, I wouldn't say animal abuse, but like, it's kind of borderline mistreatment when you're like just using it as a prop and just scaring it for no reason" Now please stop messaging me about this, you can easily search this for yourself.
To be fair, neither Dawson nor Upper Echelon claim that rigging contest results by Mr. Beast is illegal, their point seemed to be more that were Mr. Beast's videos broadcast on a major network, they would be illegal. The fact that his media empire is so much bigger and more successful than traditional outlets, makes it seems like a double standard to not be held to the same legal regulations as e.g. Survivor.
Ya, it was an ethical callout. The whole "it's legal" defense to unethical behavior when no real accusation of illegality was made, moreso that it *should* be illegal, is extremely counterproductive unless you're actively trying to defend the action.
There's a reason the guy made a UA-cam video and not a lawsuit. He isn't going for the judicial dispute, he is going for the political dispute. Honestly, he is very correct in that approach.
The FCC has many regulations in it that would constitute a violation if applied to any UA-cam videos. If tomorrow UA-cam was governed by the FCC then MoistCritikal would be banned for profanity. The point is using FCC rules for guidance on an entity not governed by the FCC is ridiculous and should be called out for what it is, a sham. Whoever Upper Echelon is should leave legal speculation to legal experts.
By that logic there are so many fcc regulations that every online, satellite radio, on demand, and cable content that would be illegal and are “ethically wrong” but no one cares cus they’re not mr beast? Lol
The FCC doesnt cover Cable, and the survivor case never went to court so its unknown if there WAS a violation in the first place. Its a stupid argument, because double standards apply to EVERYTHING that isnt public TV. He is taking a moralist stance FOR censoring the internet by saying its a double standard not to, then UE argues FCC style censorship is coming to the internet in response to all this to fear monger for clicks, something they NEVER done before even to Cable TV. Every single take from UE is terrible and contradictory, and only exists to stir the pot and spread misinformation for clicks under the excuse "well, I said I dont know but SUGGESTED IT" which is a weasel's way out for something he can easily ask a lawyer for. He wont, because he doesnt care about anything but getting the bag like all other political commentary channels. Thats why his takes are schizophrenic when you stop and think about what he says.
About the NDA: DogPack tweeted he had already lawyered up or atleast had considered that before releasing his video. He said that people often told him everything was public material & he didn't show any 1st hand evidence. He said this was to protect the clauses of his NDA & that him being a employee simply let him know *where* to look.
As a Canadian who has in fact stayed at a Holiday Inn, I can confidently say that Canada is not in the USA, and I would testify to that under oath for an expert fee.
As a Dutch man, I can confidently say that everything is owned by what you make, including building more land out of thin air while being below the sea level. We conquer the lands of the sea! 🦁🇳🇱
@@someaccount5200 He gave away a prize among people that donated to a charity he was raising money for through a livestream. Good intentions, but technically illegal.
@@someaccount5200 Jordan in 2012, was doing a charity livestream and asked the organisers if people who donate would go into eligibility to get a prize also - he never conducted the aforementioned stuff, so there's no real reason for this clip to mbe here if you go watch the whole video
He probably knows and still doesn’t care. The shock value and the extra reputation and trustability gained from exposing that is gonna benefit him more than the very unlikely chance that someone actually bothers to sue him over it
Jordan once again coming across like a pretty decent guy with a move like that. Kind of a ballsy thing to do, maybe a bit foolish, but earnest and frankly probably relatable for a lot of content creators too. It's kind of incredible how this man, out of all the "big content creators" on youtube, has continually managed to just... be a mostly normal guy. Good on you, Captain Sparklez. Keep it up. Please.
Did you guys just not watch sparkles video or anything? He said he wanted to do a giveaway and was told the way he WAS going to do it would've been an illegal lottery. HE NEVER WENT THROUGH WITH IT.
@@bigghosty6714 No I haven't watched his video, nor have I (apparently) reconstructed reality correctly. I was too busy adoring this man's honesty and likability.
I feel like the "faked video" thing only matters because he repeatedly claims that it's not. The real meat is the "alleged" criminal acts and I have been really looking forward to your coverage.
I'm very proud that I've seen most of one Mr B. video in my life, that's all. He wasn't very interesting and since then when I see click bait, I block click bait. And all he does is click bait. Personally, he sounds and acts like a giant tool to me so hearing his voice in this video made me skip large sections.
@@tomsko863 clickbait as in the thumbnail indicate HE will be doing the challenges, while its actually contestants that do em? if not, what videos do you think are clickbait?
That's how laws work. Most of the time, new laws are created because of something being too problematic. They arent created before since people didnt think of those things beforehand.
Anyone who would tell you that it's moral because the law allows it, is an a-hole who doesn't want to be challenged on morality. Every society has a combination of a set of laws, which also need to be actually enforced and enforceable and a moral society outside of law. And immoral people can make laws ofcourse, so even things that are law aren't necessarily moral
as example of that about any case of grooming a child is not considerd illegal in a lot of states in the USA, only when you actually touch a child inappropriately or exchange nudes will you get in trouble. while morally its about as bad as it can get imo
Oh to the contrary, Amazon is flippin' _terrified_ of disgruntled employees when they decide to actually do something about it, ie unionise. The absolute union busting techniques they spend so much money on because they're so scared of their employees having the power to stand up for themselves!
More like a few thousand, I am also still disturbed from working there. Poor souls who don't have a choice or actually think that those are GOOD conditions because they are used to worse
The craziest part of the whole Jimmy situation to me is that he had "Delaware" on his team for so long. Not only is he charged with sexual misconduct, his victim was between the ages of 1-11, there is almost no chance he didn't know about that especially when he knew his nickname. And that he apparently cant return to the state.
The reason why this matters is jimmy tried to expunge the guys records. He knew, his crew knew. The guy was convicted and sentenced for this crime, record and everything @@JasonKing-b1u
@@JasonKing-b1u Even if someone's innocent until guilty, it is usually well-advised to, if not fire them, put people who're in legal hot water on probation or otherwise some kind of temporary leave while you sort it all out. If the employer truly believes they're innocent, a few weeks of paid leave while everything shakes out is fairly customary. It's generally good practice to distance a workplace from the legal woes of an employee, especially if it turns out they're guilty.
Its also interesting that "Delaware" is "Jake the Vikings" BIL, and jake was also hired at the time. Will be interesting to see how that whole situation plays out
Well, the aussie lady who won a car in the Mr Beast competition here in Australia at the Sydney Opera House will have plenty to say on the Mr Beast backflips. She was explicitly told yes she had won to only then be contacted a little later to say no, she had not won and they scaled back her "prize". It was a big kerfuffle in the news.
They told her the receipts she had uploaded were fraudulent. Why would they do this? It doesn't seem like s good idea to do this unless they really saw something wrong. I would have just let her have it, but maybe they were afraid of it getting out and them being in hot water for other reasons.
@@PapaVanTwee5And as far as I know there was no evidence of them showing us that it was fake. So who knows, its a he says she says moment at this point.
Look, Internet Comment Etiquette is a very legal thing. In fact, the most legal thing. Laws are made of etiquette, and the best way to be lawful is to comment on the Internet. And it was removed? Unlawful. In fact, illegal. What happens to a lawyer when they commit illegal acts? In America, probably nothing (looking at the DOJ). But at least you should understand that my contempt is as real as my boi bouncing is.
@@11b11b1 a lot of European countries swap periods and commas in their number system. E.g West: 1,000,000.52 1 million and 52 cents Europe: 1.000.000,52 Still 1 million and 52 cents
To add some clarification, Dawson doesn't claim that everything he discusses is illegal conduct. Basically, he says that faking content and rigging contests is very sketchy -- especially since MrBeast's brand is based on honesty. He only claims that the lotteries are (allegedly) illegal.
No what he does is sprinkles in some real things that are nothing burgers and wraps it up in allegations so our monkey brain goes oh see hes right about this and gave evidence so everything else he says with zero evidence is true. His whole video is run like a conspiracy theory.
nah, lets not play only one side. Dawson made many claims outside of just what you're pointing out. MrBeast will continue to pump out wildly successful videos, and nothing will ever happen. He's got over 300m subs. 90% of them are kids, or people in other countries who don't keep up with western youtube drama. MrBeast isn't going to even feel this criticism one bit in his videos or channel. This is really nothing more than drama, seeing as how nothing will ever happen. People like to get recreationally offended. Pretending they care, when in reality, they'll shift their focus the second a more interesting piece of drama comes out.
@ontopofbottom half the stuff that's "come out" about Mr beast was stuff that's like.. so obvious? I though. Like obviously it's edited and slightly rigged for drama and views. Most of the explosions and whatnot are obviously CGI. I thought, other than toddlers, everyone knew this stuff already and watched anyway
You know that thing about people having names of a profession making them more likely to end up in that profession? I think Cary found that higher calling when he went into law.
Not basically ... it's factually true. It's a Racoon trained for performing and got paid (well in proxy) for participating in the video. Still of course it's there for fun, so no need to read that deep into it.
Technically he said something like;"i've never met anyone from that firm that wasn't an arsehole"* & the bit about harmful to clients, but show it to your prof anyway. * double negative, handy.
is it unethical to tell someone not to trust a shitty company? if I was a doctor a knew a doctor that was so egotistical that they let it get in the way of a proper diagnosis, and I told the public not to go to them, would that be unethical?
@@eggedsalad legal eagle is a bad lawyer and I wouldn't hire him to get me out of a jaywalking ticket where I clearly crossed with the light on 4k video
Upper Echelon literally spends minutes of his video going over FCC rules after saying "I'm not a lawyer" and Devin here is a lawyer literally saying "FCC does not regulate things not broadcast on airwaves" which obsoletes the uninformed rambling of well-intentioned but misinformation from Upper Echelon. You might want to retract your comment, it is poorly covered at best and disingenuous at worst.
It is both a joke and not a joke. Dogpack in his interview with Oompa says that they found the Raccoon was tamed and they used the Raccoon in the video by throwing it on the bed to claim that the Raccoon wandered in.
@@kirbs_3378 He (dogpack) went on someone else's podcast and explained it. Obviously "paid actor" is suppose to just be attention grabbing, but when you go into how this tamed animal was treated, it is sort of f*cked up.
It is a joke. The intro to the video is also a self-aware joke as well, he said something along the lines of "you don't think I know that makes me look like an unhinged psycho?". He's been interviewed about the video and DogPack thinks it's ridiculous that he's being criticized for his sense of humor, so yeah, the "raccoon is a paid actor" is only half a joke, because the raccoon obviously can't be a "paid actor" but rather, it's *not* a wild raccoon, it was domesticated and they were technically abusing it.
Canadian non-lawyer here. Federal Canadian lottery laws apply to all "promotional contest provisions of the Competition Act", regardless of the medium over which they are transmitted. Printed, radio, UA-cam, doesn't matter. That being said, unless Mr Beast has operational offices in Canada, the Competition Act wouldn't apply even if Canadians entered his contests, as he's outside our jurisdiction.
tbh i agree with the comments saying you seem pretty biased, to the point of not being able to properly convey certain facts (e.g. Upper Echelon's actual argument). i hope that whoever regulates online content (not the FCC, apparently) does step in to say "hey you can't run illegal lotteries and scams"
if devin does a part two, the eagleteam intro is gonna be "if YOUR boss puts you in a torment nexus and makes you run a marathon while sleep deprived, you'll want a good lawyer"
@maxversteeg7309 it's a shitty thing to pressure someone through, but probably not completely illegal. The big point of part 2 is about questioning the Mr. Beast character that Jimmy presents, which while isn't fraud, exposes him as a pretty shitty person and gives people more information to make an educated decision when considering to watch his content
@@maxversteeg7309but that doesn't mean you should torture someone. He said it himself, "if you're faking other videos, why not fake this one?" And that's the biggest blow to Jimmy's character. Doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, if you can fake videos, why would you put someone through insane amounts of torture? The faked videos had much higher prizes so the "you're getting 300k, suck it up." argument doesn't work because it's just not right to psychologically destroy someone. Besides, you can argue that with the life Jake led, he's more prone to agreeing to something like this and is therefore being exploited.
"I've never met a lawyer from Quinn who wasn't a huge asshole and often in a way that's counterproductive to their client." Damn, DJ Stone is going for blood.
@@_JayRamsey_Lol, as a lawyer, trust me that certain law firms, including Quinn, are trash-talked all the time in the legal field. Whether it’s because of their asshole tactics (Quinn), their terrible work culture (Cravath), their incompetence (most mid sized firms tbh), or their terrible politics (Gibson Dunn & Jones Day). So yeah, needless to say, it didn’t surprise me to hear that Devin hates Quinn. Everyone hates Quinn, haha.
if most of his content really is aimed at kids, FTC may want a word with him even if its mostly about ads and data safety. Certainly would have be more informative to hear about FTC regulations in cases like this than FCC, given the FTC does enforce regulations on the internet
@@benjaminrabbit659OO YOUR RIGHT since he mostly targets kids , he may get a big law suit , this happens to google/ UA-cam awhile back. He’s outright stealing kids data and money and that’s agianst the law in all sorts of ways ,. Like I would say even jail time, if jimmy wasn’t so rich. But because of his wealth the likeness of an actual repercussion other then being sued is unfortunately slim
@@benjaminrabbit659meh, at the end of the day you can buy FTC approval. I mean Logal Pauls audience is also mostly minors and he is still out here making profit scam and all
@@xanderholland6086 I didn't mean it in a negative/pearl-clutching sort of way. I thought it was hilarious that he would throw them under the bus like that.
the worst one was the chocolate bar golden ticket going to one of his youtuber friends. theres statistically no chance that in all of america his youtuber friend bought one of 10 chocolate bars with tickets in them, and was pointing a camera at it when he opened it. and that youtuber friend went on to win the chocolate factory.
Unfortunately you're very wrong with statistics here. UA-camrs are likely to record and Mr Beast has multiple UA-camr friends meaning higher odds of a friend getting it as a result. If he had one friend the odds are the same as anyone getting it, but with 10 friends it is 10x as likely a friend gets it.
In the 100 boys vs 100 girls video, some people had to drop out of the contest last minute due to issues such as sickness, so Mrbeast's employees or friends filled in the gap. I'd say that that was the case for this contest as well.
@@cosmicskydragon333They're not wrong though. The odds of a big UA-camr who is a friend of Jimmy winning it are extremely low, and yes that does account for the fact that he has more than one friend...
So glad you're covering this! I work legal aid with non-profits of all size and somehow my job has become "avoid becoming an illegal lottery" central-- and Mr. Beast's competitions always seemed questionable to me. As always, amazing video, and that thumbnail is just perfection!
@@hermanmunchther3082 Nobody cares about someone using a UA-cam comment as a video title, it's not the same as stealing someone else's video title. It's not even original enough of a comment to matter, any 1000 people could come up with the same comment independently on the fly.
I work at a print shop that regularly creates raffle tickets. I have the relevant requirements for raffle tickets bookmarked on our local government website and compare every requested design against it to make sure it complies. If anything is wrong, I inform the customer - in writing - to have them help us correct the missing information. CYA people.
I have worked in print shops for the past 13 years, this is over the top lol. Are you the printer, or are you the designer/creator of this raffle? Not the physical tickets, but the raffle. If all you're doing is printing the tickets or designing the artwork, you are not at all liable legally or otherwise for how your client wants to run their business.
@@sparklelikeaghost It's a small shop in a small town. Reputation is everything. I've been doing both design and production jobs for 11 years here. Most of the clients come in with their government issued license and ask for us to make a ticket. At that point, if I am missing information I KNOW is required I will tell them and include the section on raffle ticket requirements. I'm not doing this for free, we charge them for the time, but we look like super heroes and get repeat business. Great customer service requires you point out errors or issues that will cause the client grief (or unquoted costs) before you hit that point in the process. I will not print items that I know are wrong in some way without alerting the client and getting their sign-off. If they sign off, it's on them, but most will say thanks and either send corrected art or have us correct it.
@@noot-noot-pingu-noot-noot or my sister married a lawyer? not unheard of in Jewish families, I also got a cousin who is a lawyer and like 4 engineers in my family.
I imagine because he's well aware of what's actionable. The amount of comments here bemoaning him not eviscerating Beast for the ethics of his content instead of the law really illustrates the degree to which LE keeps things within his sphere of expertise. It'd be pretty hard to sue him for anything he said here.
It’s *astonishing* to me that someone as big as Mr. Beast and all the companies, team members, lawyers and people in general he has on staff… yet NO ONE knew that you have to offer a free/non-paid option to enter sweepstakes, contests and giveaways so that it doesn’t end up being an illegal lottery…? Insane. Truly bonkers. I learned that when I was like 8 years old from Nickelodeon Magazine’s various contests 😅
@@cowdyayaad6378 I think lottery tickets are for legal lotteries because those specific lotteries are given specific exemption by the state, and a giveaway with no free option to enter becomes an illegal lottery, which is not approved by the state
@@michaeldougherty6036 It's true, I was just thinking, "Man I bet a lot of people would see that as a better advertisement than you did for your own law firm."
It would be a fun time in court to argue that this kind of talk about your firm is hurting it, while also trying your best to absolutely not be an asshole and prove their point, probably to a judge who already saw guys from your firm being assholes.
@@michaeldougherty6036 Absolutely! I used to work as a legal clerk, and I met a number of attorneys who considered being regarded as a hard-ass or asshole to be a badge of pride. The mentality, in my experience, is one of equating such a reputation with being "uncompromising".
Ah but he didn't call them all assholes did he, He said he has never personally met one that WASNT a huge asshole. Technically that could mean he met one lawyer, that doesn't even work there anymore, and he was a huge asshole. I still lmao too though.
this video is just pointing out smaller issues and the GOOD mrbeast has done. Good things done dont neccesarily cancel out the bad, if he made 1 fake video in 100, its still bad, if he did 1 illegal loterry in 100, its still bad and if they hire 1 wanted man, its still bad, he does all of these and definitly more often that 1/100. Noone's saying mrbeast didnt do something good, he did, he did alot of good. BUT HE ALSO DID QUITE A BIT OF BAD
People thinking the animal is a paid actor line is a joke. I thought dogpack jokingly accused Mr. Beast of having a paid racoon actor, but then I saw another video about them actually having a domesticated racoon on set that they threw onto a bed to act like it happened randomly. This was in the 1 dollar vs 1M dollar vacation video and you can literally see the handler's finger on the back of the racoon as it comes into frame. The bed was around a foot and a half off the sand and the racoon came flying in around thigh high. So if Chucky isn't willing to admit that very minor, I wouldn't even call it animal abuse, then what other things would they deny?
If the finger is in frame, then it's not on accident. You're talking about a professional multi-million dollar production company and you think they left that in by accident?
@@MrBrock314in the video it’s barely caught, but it’s there. I think it was an accident, but that’s not my point. It’s about them lying to cover up something that isn’t a massive deal
When I was a literature/English tutor, I introduced my students to The Great Gatsby. During this lesson plan, the kids compared Jay Gatsby to Mister Beast. Sadly, now I understand why.
You should be proud. That's really good analysis out of kids. I don't really expect that level of analysis out of kids until college, Or at all if they aren't English Majors.
Lost credibility by falsely accusing Upper Echelon just for ego (while being wrong). As a lawyer, not even listening to the guy finish, for the purpose of Haha! He's not a laywer! I'm the lawyer! How can anyone trust your firm if you jump the gun and miss the evidence that is right there? Either incompetence or intentional. If prior, that's sad. If latter, that's pathetic.
It shows perfectly how pop culture has splintered with the advent of streaming. Back in the 80s and 90s, and even the 2000s everyone knew who the biggest stars on TV, in music and in the film industry were. Mr Beast may just be one of the biggest celebrities on earth right now but before the recent explosion of drama most people over the age of 15 who knew him only knew him because their kids watch his content.
@@JaceyMitchellI mean, is it really some new thing that adults without kids aren’t aware of celebrities popular with the youth? It’s not like the average 27 year old knew who Miranda Cosgrove was when iCarly started…
I would've liked to hear more legal background on the signature accusations. It seems like knowingly selling signatures that people will believe were written by one person but was actually written by others would be a form of fraud but obviously I don't know the legal contexts.
@@barkkobama the reason is he is hired by mr beast to stir public opinion in mr beast favor with "law" talk, so obviously he will leave many detail and mislead people geez the most obvious clue is that "i know this firm, you don't want to mess with them, scorched earth!!!" ugh
@@barkkobama Yeah same! And he didnt even speak about the chocolate lootboxes. At this point I think that MrBeast paid him well to take some heat of. LegalEagle even said that some of his friends participaded in Mrbeast videos.
Not going to lie, the situation got 100% worse with part 2 with jake's interview. I had hopes and suspicions but when I heard about his statement and what he'd gone through, I have to say, I really despise jimmy for the thing he did. NO ONE SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY and It disgusting in all levels.
Following up my own comment, didn’t get far enough into the video- I thought this was about the Beast Games production in Canada. There’s a DIFFERENT video talking about the legal implications of that whole ordeal.
I feel like most sweepstakes having a "no purchase necessary" clause should still be counted as requiring consideration - have you ever read all of the steps they require you to take? AND you have to pay postage for EACH ENTRY?! Sorry, they know nobody is going through all that time and effort when they can just buy a box of cereal.
In the early '90s I subscribed to a sweepstakes newsletter that had the requirements for a lot of sweepstakes, including smaller ones that were not widely publicized. I hand wrote my name and address on a lot of 3 by 5 cards, and mailed them to many addresses. Won several small prizes. Only did it for a year. These were both for the main contest, and for 2nd chance drawings for anything not claimed in the main contest.
@@EinsteinsHair I did this too! My mom used to use it as practice for us writing our names and address. We definitely win stuff here and there, a copy of a movie, or a year's worth of cereal. My little brother even won us a trip to Universal Studios Florida. We were a relatively poor family, so we never would have been able to go without it. The free entry option let that happen.
My biggest problem with this is that his primary audience are kids. They don't have the capability to understand that his videos are the modern version of reality TV (I.e, everything is faked to generate revenue).
@@harveybrowne8525 Eh, subscribers do not match his view counts so that's not a fair argument. He's not getting 300 million views a video so a vast majority of those subscribers are simply old subscribers who don't consume his content anymore. Also, promising "giveaways" to random subscribers tend to artificially inflate your subscriber numbers and he's done it basically every week since he started with youtube. Not saying he's not incredibly popular, just that you can't base anything on subscriber numbers.
Kids didn't have the ability to tell wresting on TV was fake. I remember we'll what it was like when that Bubble was popped for many of my classmates. What's the difference?
Now do the part 2 that was dropped yesterday, where he goes in on the claims of sexual harassment and messaging minors as well as knowing a sex offender was on set and keeping them there
Him streaming on UA-cam won't save him from that, but also unsure we'll see a legal breakdown of that we all know UA-cam isn't a huge fan of that subject matter especially when the case concerns a minor.
@@youokboi8556 He's done PLENTY of dark subject matter here. He's done a video on Uvalde after all. I think he might just stay away from THAT video though because there's not going to be that much to discuss from a legal perspective. This channel has always been about trying to focus on the law rather than the drama behind it. I don't think any of us need Legal Eagle to weigh in on the 'complexities' of grooming minors, lol. We already know that stuff is pretty bad. It's just a matter of if Jimmy enabled/did those things. Far less interesting from a legal perspective.
Sounds like he's stepping into territory that might have Quinn Emanual deciding he gone from an annoyance to worthy of a defamation suit, and given it would be on Dogman in defending the suit to prove the claims are true (not on Mr Beast / Donaldson to prove the claims are false) that seems a risky move.
I'm pretty sure when DogPack talks about rigging, it's to make a point against Jimmy claiming the videos are never faked. It's less about legality and more about authenticity and honesty.
But, the issue is DogPack clearly made legal accusations against Mr. Beast when he himself isn’t a lawyer…and considering what you two said here, doesn’t this make DogPack a liar? Or, at the very least an unreliable whistleblower?
@@Tax_Collector01 Yeah I think DogPack will get sued to oblivion, especially because of the NDA, but that still doesn't invalidate his claims about MrBeast's unethical practices. Even if they aren't illegal, they are bad, given MrBeast's mainly child audience. He does have evidence and corroborators.
OK, so we have irrelevant Canadian comments, here's one from the UK: Part of our rules on raffles is that it should be fair, so £1 each or 6 for £5 is both commonplace and illegal in that it gives the person with a fiver an advantage over 5 people with £1 each.
I think that's lotteries, under the Gambling Act 2005. Raffles don't have a restriction on discounts (as long as it is legally a raffle and not a lottery). I am not a lawyer.
Bruh… don’t do Echelon dirty like that.. you know that was taken out of context as much as anyone who watched his video all the way through did. I wonder if it has more to do with the particular segment he was criticizing at the time rather than his overall point 🤔🤔
There's a problem with the contestants being manipulated that I feel keeps getting overlooked. The way to get into some of this contests was to buy something, like buy this shirt during this stream for a chance to be in this contest. Another example is when he released Feastables there were tickets in random chocolate bars and the people who found them would compete in a competition for money. This people where not told that the competition was going to be rigged. They bought something believing they had a chance to take part in a fair competion for a monetary prize. Also keep in mind that Mr Beasts content mostly is targeted to children, who are even less likely to understand that this contests are not actually fair. In addition there are also some reasons to believe that at least one of the people who won a ticket to the contest wasn't a random buyer, but someone who was given a chocolate bar containing a ticket by the Mr Beast team. There are also claims of a second person not being someone who legitimately won a ticket. So the chances to find a ticket for the people who bought Feastables might have been smaller than what had been advertised to them. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I from the USA, but I feel like when you advertise that buying something gives you a certain chance to get a certain thing, you shouldn't be allowed to lie about it. Especially when it's your child audience.
This is exactly the crux of the problem with Mr Beast, and it was weirdly overlooked in this video. His audience are children and Mr Beast exploits the fact that kids often don't understand certain things that adults normally do understand. That's why the DogPack404 video is important, it's creating awareness that's easily accessible to his audience, which is fair and right to do.
@@Gavin-hq9oeHe claims that its not illegal and that its also protected by the constitution to rig competitions so it does feel like he has no problems with the ethical part either.
@JBobjork He leaves the moral judgement up to the viewer. He repeated that multiple times in the video. LegalEagle is a law channel. Not an ethics channel.
Remember, while morality and ethics SHOULD matter in law, it actually doesn't as a large portion of them were written by psychopaths trying to keep their power and create loopholes for themselves to game the system. Nothing about American law revolves around justice or doing the right thing. Not in a long time anyways. "Laws are created like a spider's web, so if something small and insignificant falls in, it holds fast. However if something large with a lot of weight and power should hit it, it will go right through" Beast is large with a lot of weight, Dogpack is small and insignificant. Unless Jimmy did something truly heinous with irrefutable proof, the law will let him slide, almost guaranteed. If for no other reason than a little envelope with green paper in it going to the judge beforehand.
Jimmy also knew about Delaware (Charles Jefferson) a registered sex offender in Delaware and was called Delaware because he was banned from going back there also some his older videos he says Delaware to Charles a lot. Knowing you have a person like that working for you is just disgusting
I see a lot of comments here nearly celebrating this video with a "Hurrah! Mr. Beast did nothing wrong!" You have to understand that there is a difference between what is ethically/morally correct, and what is legally allowed. LegalEagle is a lawyer, and he inspected this controversy through the lens of law. That does not excuse Mr. Beast from any of the wrongdoings mentioned in the several videos by other youtubers highlighting this issue. If you think simply being legally correct makes you a good person, then you might need to step back, grow up, and parse through this entire controversy at a later time.
He can probably just ignore it and let things blow over There's going to be enough viewer churn that people forget. It would be nice if he could atone and redeem himself, I think whenever he rigged games it was transparent and everyone sort of knows that it made things more interesting, or sometimes it makes it more fair or less fair. It probably evens out on a macro scale
@@ayoCC Honestly, I don't expect much of a change if this does blow over (which is what I think will happen for the most part). He just doesn't seem the honest type to me, even on camera. It's part of why I always felt his stuff was too fake feeling to get into. Plus, I think most of his viewers are on the younger end (all of the viewers of him I know personally can't even drink) and that's not an age bracket big into heavy critical thinking just yet.
The thing is, none of these claims have been substantiated in any meaningful way. And especially since they are coming from a person who was fired for erratic behaviour after only a couple months, DogPack is definitely an unreliable source who has yet to prove any of the claims he's making.
one thing that dogpark404 says in that first video is that he has info that he cant disclose because of a NDA. so i think he choose which things that were already public knowledge to actually talk about, and considering the majority of the stuff he does say can be traced back to something, i dont think theres much to directly challange for breaking something. if anything its because he has NDA based knowledge that allows him to put these things together like it is. the one thing i can recall that was of his own account was a discussion on the amount of money they get from what things, but the way it was phrased might not go anywhere with that one if its even covered by something.
@@wmdkitty this is vary specific that if he is caught lying, theres tones of consequenses. its more so he has ever motivation to spin his narative instead of reason and motivation to lie. now people do basicly group those together because how close it is and both have not stating infomation that makes it the full story. but its a vary specific line.
You took uper echolon completely out of context and mis represented him so poorly. He clearly stated in his video that the illegal lottery law does not apply to UA-cam. But. Put out a the question of when should it be. It clearly would be an illegal lottery if this was covered by FCC.
At 7:50 he did not offer the guy 10k to solve the rubik's cube, he offered the guy 10k so he doesn't solve it, essentially rigging the contest in the favour of the opposite team since the only guy that knew how to solve it was paid off.
Eagle said "he offered him 10k to solve the rubix cube" and then it cuts to the scene of Jimmy giving him 10k to get off the set. That's not giving him 10k to solve the puzzle, it's 10k for him to leave. Don't know what the rest of these people are on about in this thread, he's pointing out what eagle said isn't correct. You guys even have media literacy where you come from?
Hey time to issue a correction as you took "Upper Echelons" statements out of context. I especially love the part where you mischaracterize what he is saying and then say "this is why people need lawyers" I believe what you meant to say was "This is why people need GOOD lawyers who watch the entire video and don't remove necessary context to prove a point" .
Yet UE still posted his video expressing his opinion a video that mind you need to to make and yet UE still couldn't get the fact straight, LE pointed out that why you need a lawyer. "Fullfil basically every part of this law...in my opinion" He presented his opinion as a fact, and while he added "in my opinion", that is still quite misleading. LE pointed out about this.
@@ingenjannik ‘out of context’ No it wasn’t, the guy jumped on the drama making crazy assertions so he could make money and got angry when he was wrong.
I mean it's clear that this video was filmed shortly after the first Dogpack video was released, but I strongly recommend making a second video in response to Jake Weddle's horrible time with Mr. Beast, especially the part where one of the employees he talked to said that the confinement he was in literally broke the Geneva conventions. Also, Dogpack has made it clear that everything in the first video was publicly available information.
The way Jake kept looking down and to his right while speaking make it seem like he was checking a script, perhaps a teleprompter screen or similar. He did it over the entire interview, looking down and right more often than at the interviewer or the cameras. It could just be an individual "tick" of his, but it really stood out as atypical behavior for an interviewee telling their side of a true story.
Also, while I'm a fan of LegalEagle, I wonder why he didn't talk about the allegations surrounding feastable, MrBeast's chocolate, which seem to me to be the closest thing to a crime.
@@theKashConnoisseur I believe at the end of the video there is a clip where they do a wide of the room, then zoom in on a table Infront of him. i don't believe there was any script present in that clip.
Also I feel a big issue with the lottery/sweepstakes is that children are participating. Im not a lawyer but Im pretty sure a lot of disclaimers say someone needs to be 18 years or older to enter due to individual state or country laws
@@MaxMarra812 True, I completely forgot about that bcs LE didn’t mention the chocolate lotteries for even a second which would’ve been more important than the fake videos which wasn’t meant to be a legal topic in the first place. Not even the non-functioning gambling game. How can someone making a legal video about that not mention it but focuse so much on a comment from some guy from Canada?
I tried to be clear on the main question being whether or not Mr Beast would (or should) qualify as "broadcast" based on size and scope. I would be super curious on your thoughts for that actually. At what point should a "gameshow" with 200 million viewers across the entire world and prize pools 5x larger than traditional broadcast programs be regulated under those same guidelines. (or something similar) Right now it doesn't seem like the FCC wants anything to do with this stuff but my interpretation was that they very well *could* if they wanted to. I guess I was wrong on that.
Wouldn't that require a rewrite of that section that controls the FCC with regards to televised game shows and contests. Since nothing about the Federal Communications Act exactly covers "televised" programming on services such as UA-cam or Amazon Prime.
@@retched It seems I was wrong here... but my understanding was that no, it wouldn't really require much of a rewrite, just for the FCC to sort of... reach out and start doing it if they wanted to.
@@RvB_Fan_since_8for his own image. So what if he donates to charity? Jeffrey Epstein also donated to Charity. Donating to Charity is not an iron clad defense when the allegations are that you not only hid a sex offender(Ava Kris Tyson) but you also hired one(Delaware), tortured a contestant, ran a game show that was ridiculously unsafe, ran illegal lotteries etc.
The disappointment with Mr. Beast come from his image of being the guy who have altruistic image. That's part of his appeal and arguably helped build his enormous wealth. That's the branding that make him money and make people spend time watching his video. Nobody would feel cheated if Howard Stern do this.
His "charity" has always been paper thin. It's always been pretty clearly charity for publicity rather than publicity for charity. Sure it still does good and he can be praised for that work, but I don't think it ever reflected very much of Mr Beasts character. He makes fast food content basically, meant to be consumed without much thought full of sensationalism and cheap tricks like McDonald's is full of sugar and fat.
I don't think any of this has any relation with his altruism. He has explained several times that the altruism is both the purpose and the means of the channel. He makes money from views and viewers and the way to get views is to give away money in the most ludicrous stunts. The fact that the videos as well produced and edited should surprise no one. Is a production company that produces videos. Is what they do for a living.
@@surenick3460 It not "paper thin" when the results speak for themselves. The publicity and the views pay for the stunts and giveaways, and the stunts and giveaways attract the views. Sensationalism, cheap tricks, fast and well produced edits nothing but results of careful marketing that works for getting views. That should surprise no one. That's classic entertainment.
I have to say, Legal Eagle was out of context for moment in reference to what Dogpack said. Dog pack didn't say fake content was Illegal but he was pointing out that MrBeast says it is not scripted but the videos are actually Scripted. There were Things like the Illegal Lottery he insinuated in the beginning but he didn't say the scripted videos were illegal.
@@poeticsilence047 I mean, the DogPack videos are meant to have Mr.Beast in a horrible light. And I am NOT on Mr. Beasts side in any of these to clarify, I still think what he did was wrong. However, DogPack definitely exaggerated many parts of his videos in order to keep Mr. Beast looking bad. As a lawyer, it is their job to cut back the fluff and look at primarily the facts. The facts are exactly what he mentions in the video. He might have gotten some stuff wrong as pointed out by the original poster, but he is analyzing this from a legal standpoint rather than an ethical standpoint.
@@Er4serOPand the Jeremy guy or whatever - some 20 year old who got his coworker fired and then just basically whined. These are disgruntled kids in some of their first career jobs - not exactly the most informed people.
Upper echelon don't say MrBreast has to abide by the same law as TV networks/media corporations, he just posed the question "when/at what point does a multi billion company like MrBreast have to follow the same laws?". Get your facts right, you are supposed to be a lawyer.
Not really. He basically said that there’s nothing 100% illegal about anything mr. Beast has done. There might be some issues depending on how the contracts were worded but that’s it
you took Upper Echelon completely out of context, and it feels intentional just to be able to say someone is wrong. he is extremely explicit about the fact that those laws do not apply to youtube, and calls into question whether or not they should be, not whether or not they are.
So they are just padded claims for nothing? Instead of focusing on actual issues presented he focuses on non stories and then tries to couch it as ‘I’m not a lawyer’. This just reads like ‘this isn’t financial advice’
@@waynewayne8419 did you watch his video? he doesn't present it as actually being illegal, he is making a comparison to how it would be illegal for shows on the air that receive even LESS attention than Mr Beast, making the point that such a thing *should* be illegal and further cementing it as unethical in nature. just because checks and balances are not in place does not mean we shouldn't talk about how they should be.
@@zekerdeath You accuse LegalEagle of taking the video out of context, but ironically enough, you are doing the same thing with the LegalEagle video. This channel's job has never been to make any claims about whether something is or is not immoral, but merely, to analyze the legality of someone's actions. This video did exactly just that, and the Dog video is simply being used for context.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 ... what? are you a bot? that's a confoundingly brain dead response. legal eagle DID take it out of context and misconstrue what was said. whatever nonsense you're peddling doesn't really deny that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
@@zekerdeath Just because you do the brain-dead thing of calling me a "bot" doesn't actually mean you've disproven anything I said or even addressed it. My statements are very clear and coherent. If you don't understand them, then maybe you need to continue practicing your English language skills. But that's a you-problem, at that point.
dogpack seems to be laywered up too, he is very careful with disclosing information when being interviewed, some even go as far as calling him paranoid due to his unwillingness to answer on the spot questions.
>All mrbeast contestants used to be employees it’s not illegal >the website said “a member of the mrbeast team” meaning mrbeast himself didn’t have to sign the shirts
@@Glacialgaming The shirts had more than just the MB signature. The guy caught on camera using the MB signature literally signed it with (im assuming) his own signature afterwards. If the MB signature is supposed to be jimmys signature and not just some meaningless scribble, then saying "signed by a member of the mr beast team" implies that they are all using their own signatures.
Is MrBeast going down? 🚀 Extended version on Nebula! legaleagle.link/nebulaforlife ⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
MR BEAST IS COOKED
Eagle army my parents said if I hit 35k they’d buy me a professional camera begging you guys please🎉
Here's a question. You talk about the effort required by the consumer to constitute a consideration. But despite the consumer not losing anything, a channel is monetized based on subscriptions. Could it be argued that helping Mr. Beast's monetization constitutes consideration? It is still something of substance provided to him, even if it's not something subtracted from the consumer.
I have nebula, i dont see a difference besides the 3 less minutes from the sponsor
awesome man i was waiting to get good coverage on this situation from a professional such as yourself
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Amazon isn't too concerned about shady business practices
They will be if they can get money out of him and look good doing it
No, but they might be concerned if the reputation of one of their "products" (Beast Games) is suddenly tarnished by huge controversy
Remember that this man isn’t suicidal
They picked up Hazbin Hotel for shits n giggles
Why wouldn't you? Seriously who cares if they are shady?
Ok, thanks to LegalEagle explaining that FCC only regulates things that are broadcast over the air, I now finally understand all those late night talk show moments where a guest says "am I allowed to say this" and the host responds "yeah, this is cable". I never knew before why the cable distinction mattered.
Merica, the land of freeeeeedum
@@undefined69695only bested by the UK, where they curse like sailors and drink on late night!
there are different rules for public broadcast channels vs private subscription-based broadcasts.
gov't doesn't care about what Comcast's cable network broadcasts, as long as it's not illegal. but the gov't sure does mind what you say on public-funded public-access broadcasts, which is open and available for everyone to see and view
@@undefined69695 The spectrum is a common natural resource and is subject to regulation like any other common.
In many countries, cable channels still get pretty much the same regulation, though youtube typically still avoids it.
Rigged, illegal, whatever it is: _"That raccoon is a paid actor"_ is hilarious 😂
I’ve caught on with that as well.
Yes one can argue that Jimmy’s Videos are either Rigged, Scripted or straight up fake, but saying that a “Raccoon” is a paid actor.
That’s a bit of stretch (like elasticity stretching) which also makes it hilarious 😅
@@exwa1300it was a joke
@@lte6983 dogpack said it was allegedly domesticated. And it was tossed onto the bed in the video rather than jumping up which is, allegedly, potentially 'borderline mistreatment' as well according to him.
EDIT: Correction, the exact phrasing was borderline mistreatment, I've corrected the statement. This comes from from dogpack's interview with Oompaville. Dogpack did say that though, at roughly the 9:30 mark of the video "MrBeast Drama Got Complicated" on oompaville's channel. Here is the full quote I did my best to write it down:
"In reality it's much worse than being a paid actor. Yeah it's a domestic racoon they brought to the set and they were like sorta treating it like a prop they were putting it in the ceiling and then pretending like you know they just discovered it. But then there's a scene where somebody off camera takes the racoon and like throws it onto the bed. And I'm sure you could pull this clip up. The edit is very strange because there is a zoom in and pan up so it like hides the fact that the racoon is going on the bed, uh, but what it's really doing is it's hiding the fact that someone is throwing the racoon. Then there's a voiceover of Jimmy in post saying 'Oh man, the racoon just ran in the hotel', or whatever and they're all screaming at it and shit so it's like, almost, I wouldn't say animal abuse, but like, it's kind of borderline mistreatment when you're like just using it as a prop and just scaring it for no reason"
Now please stop messaging me about this, you can easily search this for yourself.
Apparently they hired a domestic raccoon
Asking the real questions.
To be fair, neither Dawson nor Upper Echelon claim that rigging contest results by Mr. Beast is illegal, their point seemed to be more that were Mr. Beast's videos broadcast on a major network, they would be illegal. The fact that his media empire is so much bigger and more successful than traditional outlets, makes it seems like a double standard to not be held to the same legal regulations as e.g. Survivor.
Ya, it was an ethical callout. The whole "it's legal" defense to unethical behavior when no real accusation of illegality was made, moreso that it *should* be illegal, is extremely counterproductive unless you're actively trying to defend the action.
There's a reason the guy made a UA-cam video and not a lawsuit. He isn't going for the judicial dispute, he is going for the political dispute.
Honestly, he is very correct in that approach.
The FCC has many regulations in it that would constitute a violation if applied to any UA-cam videos. If tomorrow UA-cam was governed by the FCC then MoistCritikal would be banned for profanity. The point is using FCC rules for guidance on an entity not governed by the FCC is ridiculous and should be called out for what it is, a sham. Whoever Upper Echelon is should leave legal speculation to legal experts.
By that logic there are so many fcc regulations that every online, satellite radio, on demand, and cable content that would be illegal and are “ethically wrong” but no one cares cus they’re not mr beast? Lol
The FCC doesnt cover Cable, and the survivor case never went to court so its unknown if there WAS a violation in the first place. Its a stupid argument, because double standards apply to EVERYTHING that isnt public TV. He is taking a moralist stance FOR censoring the internet by saying its a double standard not to, then UE argues FCC style censorship is coming to the internet in response to all this to fear monger for clicks, something they NEVER done before even to Cable TV. Every single take from UE is terrible and contradictory, and only exists to stir the pot and spread misinformation for clicks under the excuse "well, I said I dont know but SUGGESTED IT" which is a weasel's way out for something he can easily ask a lawyer for. He wont, because he doesnt care about anything but getting the bag like all other political commentary channels. Thats why his takes are schizophrenic when you stop and think about what he says.
About the NDA: DogPack tweeted he had already lawyered up or atleast had considered that before releasing his video.
He said that people often told him everything was public material & he didn't show any 1st hand evidence. He said this was to protect the clauses of his NDA & that him being a employee simply let him know *where* to look.
I hope whomever he consulted is right, cause if their not, then he has a problem.
I'm pretty sure an NDA can't keep someone from reporting a crime. Just not sure whether that only applies in court or in public as well
A this video pointed out, it is common for such NDAs to contain non-disparaging clauses. He is doing a lot of disparaging.
@@BoomerangVillageif he’s lawyered up, I’d assume the lawyer would’ve stopped him from posting if that was in his NDA
The NDA itself can be used as evidence. Its purpose is to protect against copyright infringement, not criminal acts.
As a Canadian who has in fact stayed at a Holiday Inn, I can confidently say that Canada is not in the USA, and I would testify to that under oath for an expert fee.
As a New Zealander who worked with a Canadian and has been to the USA, I can confirm Canadians hate being called Americans
As an Australian who hasn't set foot in the Western Hemisphere, I assert the accuracy of this statement.
As a Scandinavian, I claim everything falls under the legal domain of Asgård, where Oden and the fallen warriors enhärjarna live in Valhall.
As a Dutch man, I can confidently say that everything is owned by what you make, including building more land out of thin air while being below the sea level. We conquer the lands of the sea! 🦁🇳🇱
As a frenchman I can confirm we surrender
I was not expecting the CaptainSparklez clip, but a good use of it to remind people "probably still not good to admit it on camera"
What did Jordan do?
@@someaccount5200I thought it was stated in the video, but basically he admitted to conducting an illegal lottery (albeit in good faith)
@@someaccount5200 He gave away a prize among people that donated to a charity he was raising money for through a livestream. Good intentions, but technically illegal.
@@someaccount5200 Jordan in 2012, was doing a charity livestream and asked the organisers if people who donate would go into eligibility to get a prize also - he never conducted the aforementioned stuff, so there's no real reason for this clip to mbe here if you go watch the whole video
He probably knows and still doesn’t care. The shock value and the extra reputation and trustability gained from exposing that is gonna benefit him more than the very unlikely chance that someone actually bothers to sue him over it
Saw you made it into an internet comment etiquette video. Proud of you
Hmm, I don't see his comment...
25:16 "This is a tough firm, are not lawyers you want to mess with."
2 seconds later: "These guys are assholes."
Never change, Legaleagle.
In fairness when it comes to lawyers, those are not contradictory statements
That's an opinion, therefore legal
That 'scorched earth' litigation is some rough stuff to be involved in. They just dig up dirt on you an bury you under the court house lol
Pretty sure those lawyers would take being called an asshole as a compliment.
I loved that he said that, such a great channel. Agreed, please don't change!
I like that CaptainSparkles admitted to doing an illegal lottery. It's honest and removes the 'hypocrit!' argument.
As long as the statute of limitations has expired for the crime he’s admitting to hahah
I mean pretty much every youtuber and streamer has likely done an illegal lottery at some point.
Jordan once again coming across like a pretty decent guy with a move like that. Kind of a ballsy thing to do, maybe a bit foolish, but earnest and frankly probably relatable for a lot of content creators too.
It's kind of incredible how this man, out of all the "big content creators" on youtube, has continually managed to just... be a mostly normal guy. Good on you, Captain Sparklez. Keep it up. Please.
Did you guys just not watch sparkles video or anything? He said he wanted to do a giveaway and was told the way he WAS going to do it would've been an illegal lottery. HE NEVER WENT THROUGH WITH IT.
@@bigghosty6714 No I haven't watched his video, nor have I (apparently) reconstructed reality correctly. I was too busy adoring this man's honesty and likability.
I feel like the "faked video" thing only matters because he repeatedly claims that it's not. The real meat is the "alleged" criminal acts and I have been really looking forward to your coverage.
Feel bad for jake weddle man
@@TheJigsawKiller fuckin wild they basically put him through a temu stanford prison experiment.
That's more about the audience's trust than legality.
Yesss i would have liked that he talked about the feastables lotteries
@@andreachavez8088Those are also sweepstakes
Well I certainly didn't have Internet Comment Etiquette referencing Legal Eagle on my 2024 Bingo Card...
Bounced on my boy's legal advice to this
I can't find his comment 👀
@@electron6825 Sad Face L
Legal Eagle should do a reaction to Driving on Salvia in response.
@@whitejacket9725 nice
Bro talked about how subscribing to a channel isn't likely to be considered a significant effort and didn't even use it to ask us to subscribe.
Touch grass
yeah, that was a missed opportunity for a great segue
haha true
that would have been smooth af
Honestly would make me want to subscribe more if I wasn't already subscribed
Defo a missed opportunity for a snarky call to action 😂😂
"Now I haven't reviewed every Mr. Beast video, I have a life." was the most relatable comment he said.
Yeah hahahaha. Hahahahahaa
I'm very proud that I've seen most of one Mr B. video in my life, that's all. He wasn't very interesting and since then when I see click bait, I block click bait. And all he does is click bait.
Personally, he sounds and acts like a giant tool to me so hearing his voice in this video made me skip large sections.
@@tomsko863 I don't think i've ever watched a full video of him, only people reporting on what he does because he makes noise
And i don't plan to
@@tomsko863you sound so old lol
@@tomsko863 clickbait as in the thumbnail indicate HE will be doing the challenges, while its actually contestants that do em?
if not, what videos do you think are clickbait?
The more I learn about laws, the more I feel that just because something's legal doesn't mean it's moral.
That's how laws work. Most of the time, new laws are created because of something being too problematic. They arent created before since people didnt think of those things beforehand.
The laws were not made by moral people so it fits.
Of course it doesn't. Morality varies from person to person.
Anyone who would tell you that it's moral because the law allows it, is an a-hole who doesn't want to be challenged on morality.
Every society has a combination of a set of laws, which also need to be actually enforced and enforceable and a moral society outside of law.
And immoral people can make laws ofcourse, so even things that are law aren't necessarily moral
as example of that about any case of grooming a child is not considerd illegal in a lot of states in the USA, only when you actually touch a child inappropriately or exchange nudes will you get in trouble. while morally its about as bad as it can get imo
Im just here to see if I could find Erik's comment. I dont see it... did you have it removed?
Me too bro I think it was
i also came here to find big daddy in the wild
As someone who used to work for Amazon, I don’t think they’re too concerned about a few hundred disgruntled people that were treated badly
Having a few hundred abused employees is probably a prerequisite to work with them ❤️
Oh to the contrary, Amazon is flippin' _terrified_ of disgruntled employees when they decide to actually do something about it, ie unionise. The absolute union busting techniques they spend so much money on because they're so scared of their employees having the power to stand up for themselves!
More than a few hundred but your point still stands sadly.
More than just disgruntled.. more like starved, injured, broken bones, unmedicated
More like a few thousand, I am also still disturbed from working there. Poor souls who don't have a choice or actually think that those are GOOD conditions because they are used to worse
The craziest part of the whole Jimmy situation to me is that he had "Delaware" on his team for so long. Not only is he charged with sexual misconduct, his victim was between the ages of 1-11, there is almost no chance he didn't know about that especially when he knew his nickname. And that he apparently cant return to the state.
Proven innocent until guilty, knew of lawsuit perhaps. Knew he was guilty I don't think that for Beast to decide, but rather a court of law.
The reason why this matters is jimmy tried to expunge the guys records. He knew, his crew knew. The guy was convicted and sentenced for this crime, record and everything
@@JasonKing-b1u
@@JasonKing-b1u Even if someone's innocent until guilty, it is usually well-advised to, if not fire them, put people who're in legal hot water on probation or otherwise some kind of temporary leave while you sort it all out. If the employer truly believes they're innocent, a few weeks of paid leave while everything shakes out is fairly customary. It's generally good practice to distance a workplace from the legal woes of an employee, especially if it turns out they're guilty.
Its also interesting that "Delaware" is "Jake the Vikings" BIL, and jake was also hired at the time. Will be interesting to see how that whole situation plays out
i think pretty sure this video is recorded before dogpack's second video
Well, the aussie lady who won a car in the Mr Beast competition here in Australia at the Sydney Opera House will have plenty to say on the Mr Beast backflips. She was explicitly told yes she had won to only then be contacted a little later to say no, she had not won and they scaled back her "prize". It was a big kerfuffle in the news.
That messed up honestly... just wow
Why am I not surprised jeez.
They told her the receipts she had uploaded were fraudulent. Why would they do this? It doesn't seem like s good idea to do this unless they really saw something wrong. I would have just let her have it, but maybe they were afraid of it getting out and them being in hot water for other reasons.
@@PapaVanTwee5And as far as I know there was no evidence of them showing us that it was fake. So who knows, its a he says she says moment at this point.
@@astupidlylongnamethatstoolong Or maybe she scanned the receipt but not the QR Code (which was a requirement).
Look, Internet Comment Etiquette is a very legal thing. In fact, the most legal thing. Laws are made of etiquette, and the best way to be lawful is to comment on the Internet. And it was removed? Unlawful. In fact, illegal. What happens to a lawyer when they commit illegal acts?
In America, probably nothing (looking at the DOJ). But at least you should understand that my contempt is as real as my boi bouncing is.
Damn, LegalEagle actually did the joke of $1 lawyer vs $1.000.000 lawyer
1.000.000 = 1
1,000,000 = 1 000 000
@@11b11b1 It depends on where you're from tho
@@11b11b1 not everyone is from the West
@@11b11b1 Not in non-english speaking countries
@@11b11b1 a lot of European countries swap periods and commas in their number system. E.g
West: 1,000,000.52
1 million and 52 cents
Europe: 1.000.000,52
Still 1 million and 52 cents
"You wouldn't want to mess with these lawyers..."
Oh, cause they're super thorough with cases?
"...cause they're huge assholes"
Oh okay
Hahaha yeah, huge Suits vibes from that sentence
Because they will dig up your entire history and dirt and run a campaign against you
I love that he was PERFECTLY willing to call them out.
@@MitchellTFwell Devin didn't sign an NDA with a disparagement clause attached, so disparage away!! 😂
@@oreojsn92 Also if you are putting "most feared lawfirm" on your website I think you are proud of it.
To add some clarification, Dawson doesn't claim that everything he discusses is illegal conduct. Basically, he says that faking content and rigging contests is very sketchy -- especially since MrBeast's brand is based on honesty.
He only claims that the lotteries are (allegedly) illegal.
No what he does is sprinkles in some real things that are nothing burgers and wraps it up in allegations so our monkey brain goes oh see hes right about this and gave evidence so everything else he says with zero evidence is true. His whole video is run like a conspiracy theory.
Yeah and specifically the T shirt lottery thing which LegalEagle kinda avoided.
nah, lets not play only one side. Dawson made many claims outside of just what you're pointing out. MrBeast will continue to pump out wildly successful videos, and nothing will ever happen. He's got over 300m subs. 90% of them are kids, or people in other countries who don't keep up with western youtube drama. MrBeast isn't going to even feel this criticism one bit in his videos or channel. This is really nothing more than drama, seeing as how nothing will ever happen. People like to get recreationally offended. Pretending they care, when in reality, they'll shift their focus the second a more interesting piece of drama comes out.
@@ontopofbottom feigned outrage. next... yup.
@ontopofbottom half the stuff that's "come out" about Mr beast was stuff that's like.. so obvious? I though. Like obviously it's edited and slightly rigged for drama and views. Most of the explosions and whatnot are obviously CGI. I thought, other than toddlers, everyone knew this stuff already and watched anyway
Even if all mrbeast did is legal, it's still just morally wrong
yea
The law doesn't care about your feelings
@@AgnesBooth-zu7tw It doesn't care about your feelings either bud.
Ah yes a "get out of jail free" card to still be outraged
I haven't seen many of Beasts videos, but what stuff is morally wrong? Breaking anti lottery laws?
"I've personally never met a lawyer from Quinn that wasn't a huge asshole..." I laughed so hard when you said that, felt like it was out of nowhere
That's lawyerspeak for "You magnificent bastard, I salute you!"
Can't wait for the paid raccoon to be the witness on the stand.
*“He promised me trash not to be treated like it your honour ”*
-Trashpanda
*Phoenix Wright enters chat*
Ace Attorney style
And then they'll subpoena for the raccoons bank statements
Nah just watch Dogpack404 instead
25:16: "I have personally never met a lawyer from quinn who wasnt a huge asshole"
-> Page shows a guy named *Cary Adickman*
Thought that was a fake name at first
💀
You know that thing about people having names of a profession making them more likely to end up in that profession? I think Cary found that higher calling when he went into law.
@@petergao96 You mean Nominative Determinism? Eg Usain Bolt = very fast runner.
@@BaddeJimme yeee, or like someone named baker would be a baker
Upper Echelon madea a response video to this and shows you trimmed out what he said to change his argument...
This dude is a hack lmao
@@apocalypticpioneers2116always has been
Is the response video on his channel? None of the titles or thumbnails in the last week say they're a response to this video.
@@TriforceWisdom64 Video: The Mr Beast Disaster Could DAMAGE UA-cam - A Content "Gold Rush"
Response starts at 7:13
@@TriforceWisdom64 Not a full response video, it's in the video The Mr Beast Disaster Could DAMAGE UA-cam - A Content "Gold Rush"
The fact that "this racoon is a paid actor" is basically true is hilarious.
this lawyer is a paid actor too most likely
@@kimikimi999 you can literally contact his law firm
Not basically ... it's factually true. It's a Racoon trained for performing and got paid (well in proxy) for participating in the video. Still of course it's there for fun, so no need to read that deep into it.
dogpack looses all credibility when blatantly lying about the racoon in his video.
@@darkshadowsx5949The raccoon is a trained animal.
Wow, i have never heard a lawyer call an entire firm an asshole. Im in law school and our ethics professor would faint to hear that said publicly.
Which makes me think that firm is much more than asshole, and asshole was the 'nice' version.
Technically he said something like;"i've never met anyone from that firm that wasn't an arsehole"* & the bit about harmful to clients, but show it to your prof anyway.
* double negative, handy.
is it unethical to tell someone not to trust a shitty company? if I was a doctor a knew a doctor that was so egotistical that they let it get in the way of a proper diagnosis, and I told the public not to go to them, would that be unethical?
@@chaosflash7 I think they meant the ethics professor would faint from happiness
Keep quite about bad behavior = good ethics, calling out bad behavior = bad ethics..... in what world?
One dollar allegations VS. Million dollar allegations
There is already about a thousand of these 1 VS. million comments, and im here to like them all.
$1 lawyer vs $100,000,000 lawyer
$1 bribe vs $1000000000 bribe
@@DFlores2009You could sort that based on government official.
$1 dollar vs trillion zimbabwe dollar
Might want to retract on the Upper Echelon piece. Its poorly covered at best and disingenuous at worst.
He did that on purpose, he does this all the time
@@apocalypticpioneers2116 doesnt make it alright, if thats what you're implying
@@eggedsalad legal eagle is a bad lawyer and I wouldn't hire him to get me out of a jaywalking ticket where I clearly crossed with the light on 4k video
Upper Echelon literally spends minutes of his video going over FCC rules after saying "I'm not a lawyer" and Devin here is a lawyer literally saying "FCC does not regulate things not broadcast on airwaves" which obsoletes the uninformed rambling of well-intentioned but misinformation from Upper Echelon. You might want to retract your comment, it is poorly covered at best and disingenuous at worst.
"If you running an illegal lottery you'll want a good lawyer, but if you want a GREAT lawyer.."
Now thats some BETTER CALL SAUL vibes 😂 love it!
You need a CRIMINAL lawyer
Bruce Rivers? @@ba8e
You don't want a criminal lawyer, you want a CRIMINAL lawyer!
"This raccoon is a paid actor" gets me every time and I still cannot tell if it is a joke
It’s a joke but it’s funny when people use it as him actually calling a raccoon a paid actor lol
It was a joke. I did hear that it was a domesticated raccoon but they were yelling at it and that almost makes it worse.
It is both a joke and not a joke. Dogpack in his interview with Oompa says that they found the Raccoon was tamed and they used the Raccoon in the video by throwing it on the bed to claim that the Raccoon wandered in.
@@kirbs_3378 He (dogpack) went on someone else's podcast and explained it. Obviously "paid actor" is suppose to just be attention grabbing, but when you go into how this tamed animal was treated, it is sort of f*cked up.
It is a joke. The intro to the video is also a self-aware joke as well, he said something along the lines of "you don't think I know that makes me look like an unhinged psycho?". He's been interviewed about the video and DogPack thinks it's ridiculous that he's being criticized for his sense of humor, so yeah, the "raccoon is a paid actor" is only half a joke, because the raccoon obviously can't be a "paid actor" but rather, it's *not* a wild raccoon, it was domesticated and they were technically abusing it.
Canadian non-lawyer here. Federal Canadian lottery laws apply to all "promotional contest provisions of the Competition Act", regardless of the medium over which they are transmitted. Printed, radio, UA-cam, doesn't matter.
That being said, unless Mr Beast has operational offices in Canada, the Competition Act wouldn't apply even if Canadians entered his contests, as he's outside our jurisdiction.
Duh?
I too watched the video
Canadian lotteries, sweepstakes and giveaways are always tax free as well.
Non American non lawyer here, Laws are confusing.
And we know canada doesnt care about kids
tbh i agree with the comments saying you seem pretty biased, to the point of not being able to properly convey certain facts (e.g. Upper Echelon's actual argument). i hope that whoever regulates online content (not the FCC, apparently) does step in to say "hey you can't run illegal lotteries and scams"
if devin does a part two, the eagleteam intro is gonna be "if YOUR boss puts you in a torment nexus and makes you run a marathon while sleep deprived, you'll want a good lawyer"
There was no gun to jakes head, if you dont want to do the challenge you dont…
He was there to win 300k, that will never be easy
@maxversteeg7309 it's a shitty thing to pressure someone through, but probably not completely illegal. The big point of part 2 is about questioning the Mr. Beast character that Jimmy presents, which while isn't fraud, exposes him as a pretty shitty person and gives people more information to make an educated decision when considering to watch his content
@@maxversteeg7309I guess reckless endagerment is just not a thing
@@maxversteeg7309but that doesn't mean you should torture someone. He said it himself, "if you're faking other videos, why not fake this one?" And that's the biggest blow to Jimmy's character. Doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, if you can fake videos, why would you put someone through insane amounts of torture? The faked videos had much higher prizes so the "you're getting 300k, suck it up." argument doesn't work because it's just not right to psychologically destroy someone. Besides, you can argue that with the life Jake led, he's more prone to agreeing to something like this and is therefore being exploited.
@@maxversteeg7309you know that threats of harm is not the only kind of coercion?
"I've never met a lawyer from Quinn who wasn't a huge asshole and often in a way that's counterproductive to their client." Damn, DJ Stone is going for blood.
I can't wait for his follow up video "Quinn sent me a cease and desist and heres why they are complete assholes"
yeah that came out of nowhere lmao
It feels rare to hear one lawyer talk about another like that in public. I like it.
@@_JayRamsey_Lol, as a lawyer, trust me that certain law firms, including Quinn, are trash-talked all the time in the legal field. Whether it’s because of their asshole tactics (Quinn), their terrible work culture (Cravath), their incompetence (most mid sized firms tbh), or their terrible politics (Gibson Dunn & Jones Day).
So yeah, needless to say, it didn’t surprise me to hear that Devin hates Quinn. Everyone hates Quinn, haha.
One of the associate is called Adickman
What rubs me the wrong way about this is that most of his content was aimed at kids, so these lotteries were 100% scamming them.
if most of his content really is aimed at kids, FTC may want a word with him even if its mostly about ads and data safety. Certainly would have be more informative to hear about FTC regulations in cases like this than FCC, given the FTC does enforce regulations on the internet
@@benjaminrabbit659OO YOUR RIGHT since he mostly targets kids , he may get a big law suit , this happens to google/ UA-cam awhile back. He’s outright stealing kids data and money and that’s agianst the law in all sorts of ways ,. Like I would say even jail time, if jimmy wasn’t so rich.
But because of his wealth the likeness of an actual repercussion other then being sued is unfortunately slim
Minors cann't enter into contests anyway... it's a contract.
@@benjaminrabbit659meh, at the end of the day you can buy FTC approval. I mean Logal Pauls audience is also mostly minors and he is still out here making profit scam and all
@@Kristinapedia There's "not allowed" to enter and then there's reality.
Where's eriK's comment?
25:10 "I personally never met a lawyer from Quinn who wasn't a huge asshole" 🤣
I like the timing of this after talking about disparaging remarks for 3 minutes xD
Professional courtesy? 404 Not Found.
I had to rewind because what 😅
@@radix4801 normally he's very professional, so the fact he said it says a lot about those people
@@xanderholland6086 I didn't mean it in a negative/pearl-clutching sort of way. I thought it was hilarious that he would throw them under the bus like that.
the worst one was the chocolate bar golden ticket going to one of his youtuber friends. theres statistically no chance that in all of america his youtuber friend bought one of 10 chocolate bars with tickets in them, and was pointing a camera at it when he opened it. and that youtuber friend went on to win the chocolate factory.
There is statistically a chance, it is VERY low, but there is a chance.
Unfortunately you're very wrong with statistics here.
UA-camrs are likely to record and Mr Beast has multiple UA-camr friends meaning higher odds of a friend getting it as a result. If he had one friend the odds are the same as anyone getting it, but with 10 friends it is 10x as likely a friend gets it.
@@Woofer21 same change I have of winning the lotto
In the 100 boys vs 100 girls video, some people had to drop out of the contest last minute due to issues such as sickness, so Mrbeast's employees or friends filled in the gap. I'd say that that was the case for this contest as well.
@@cosmicskydragon333They're not wrong though. The odds of a big UA-camr who is a friend of Jimmy winning it are extremely low, and yes that does account for the fact that he has more than one friend...
So glad you're covering this! I work legal aid with non-profits of all size and somehow my job has become "avoid becoming an illegal lottery" central-- and Mr. Beast's competitions always seemed questionable to me. As always, amazing video, and that thumbnail is just perfection!
Title was stolen from a comment on dogpak video
😮
😮
@@hermanmunchther3082 Nobody cares about someone using a UA-cam comment as a video title, it's not the same as stealing someone else's video title. It's not even original enough of a comment to matter, any 1000 people could come up with the same comment independently on the fly.
@@ada5851indeed, and I've seen that particular joke made in comments on various different videos that've discussed this topic.
If you're looking for the UA-cam comment by internet comment etiquette: It seems Legal Eagle removed it. Boo!
lame
Boo this man! BOO!
Sad.
@@FTZPLTC this is the third video i looked for in it. is he even posting them anymore :C
Cancel LegalEagle.
I work at a print shop that regularly creates raffle tickets. I have the relevant requirements for raffle tickets bookmarked on our local government website and compare every requested design against it to make sure it complies. If anything is wrong, I inform the customer - in writing - to have them help us correct the missing information. CYA people.
Amen.
I have worked in print shops for the past 13 years, this is over the top lol. Are you the printer, or are you the designer/creator of this raffle? Not the physical tickets, but the raffle. If all you're doing is printing the tickets or designing the artwork, you are not at all liable legally or otherwise for how your client wants to run their business.
@@sparklelikeaghost They are once they start pointing out how they "have to" run their business.
Always always always in writing (handwritten or more likely digital). Solid approach to your work.
@@sparklelikeaghost It's a small shop in a small town. Reputation is everything. I've been doing both design and production jobs for 11 years here.
Most of the clients come in with their government issued license and ask for us to make a ticket. At that point, if I am missing information I KNOW is required I will tell them and include the section on raffle ticket requirements. I'm not doing this for free, we charge them for the time, but we look like super heroes and get repeat business.
Great customer service requires you point out errors or issues that will cause the client grief (or unquoted costs) before you hit that point in the process. I will not print items that I know are wrong in some way without alerting the client and getting their sign-off. If they sign off, it's on them, but most will say thanks and either send corrected art or have us correct it.
"i have a life" that brave talk for a lawyer, i can assure you my brother in law who is a lawyer don't have much of a life.
It depends on whether work counts as "a life".
"Brother in Law" heh
brother in law in law???
-I can assure you, my brother in law. so assertive
@@noot-noot-pingu-noot-noot or my sister married a lawyer? not unheard of in Jewish families, I also got a cousin who is a lawyer and like 4 engineers in my family.
I really find it satisfying when legal eagle makes videos about people who are prone to suing, most people are too scared to even think of doing that
I imagine because he's well aware of what's actionable. The amount of comments here bemoaning him not eviscerating Beast for the ethics of his content instead of the law really illustrates the degree to which LE keeps things within his sphere of expertise. It'd be pretty hard to sue him for anything he said here.
@@thebadshave503Plus him being an actual lawyer likely adds a lot of passive intimidation to anyone thinking about suing him
@@crestothegecko6279well, at least in the UA-cam space - he _did_ casually eviscerate Illuminaughtii and start her downfall.
Yeh well he pretty much just defended mr beast here btw.
@@mnxsIlluminati did that all by herself. Devon was incredibly polite and professional-which only made her look worse 😂
It’s *astonishing* to me that someone as big as Mr. Beast and all the companies, team members, lawyers and people in general he has on staff… yet NO ONE knew that you have to offer a free/non-paid option to enter sweepstakes, contests and giveaways so that it doesn’t end up being an illegal lottery…? Insane. Truly bonkers. I learned that when I was like 8 years old from Nickelodeon Magazine’s various contests 😅
doesn't lottery tickets cost money? Wouldn't it be loss to make it free?
@@cowdyayaad6378 I think lottery tickets are for legal lotteries because those specific lotteries are given specific exemption by the state, and a giveaway with no free option to enter becomes an illegal lottery, which is not approved by the state
@@cowdyayaad6378 There’s a difference between government ran lotteries and ones ran by other people
buddy that was super early in his career of course he didnt know
@@cowdyayaad6378 sanctioned lottery, run via the government. That's how there's only a few types of lottery ticket rather than masses of them
The fact that you have Pink Guy in the dead town of old UA-cam had me shook. I miss old UA-cam.
Filthy Frank died so that we could have the new Content Cop 6 years later I swear.
He's just a phoenix that reported into joji
same, when it was just a wild west
Its was shit
He will never leave the rice fields
"i've never met a lawyer from [firm] who wasn't a major asshole" is a crazy sentence to follow up defining disparagement
For some law firms, being known as assholes is a cultivated image of limitless value. He practically gave them free advertising.
@@michaeldougherty6036 It's true, I was just thinking, "Man I bet a lot of people would see that as a better advertisement than you did for your own law firm."
It would be a fun time in court to argue that this kind of talk about your firm is hurting it, while also trying your best to absolutely not be an asshole and prove their point, probably to a judge who already saw guys from your firm being assholes.
I feel like a lot of lawyers know this and absolutely do not care to sue someone over that comment actually they probably use it in their marketing.
@@michaeldougherty6036 Absolutely! I used to work as a legal clerk, and I met a number of attorneys who considered being regarded as a hard-ass or asshole to be a badge of pride. The mentality, in my experience, is one of equating such a reputation with being "uncompromising".
Lmfaoo Devin calling all those lawyers assholes was hilarious.
Given what he was just talking about, I wonder if that counted as a case of disparagement.
@@lev3kunfortunately, or fortunately, devin did NOT sign a non-disparagement clause
Well he has no contract with them @@lev3k
Ah but he didn't call them all assholes did he, He said he has never personally met one that WASNT a huge asshole. Technically that could mean he met one lawyer, that doesn't even work there anymore, and he was a huge asshole. I still lmao too though.
@@steakbbq technically it could even mean that he has never met a single one of them
this video is just pointing out smaller issues and the GOOD mrbeast has done. Good things done dont neccesarily cancel out the bad, if he made 1 fake video in 100, its still bad, if he did 1 illegal loterry in 100, its still bad and if they hire 1 wanted man, its still bad, he does all of these and definitly more often that 1/100. Noone's saying mrbeast didnt do something good, he did, he did alot of good. BUT HE ALSO DID QUITE A BIT OF BAD
Delaware's real name is Charles R Jefferson. He’s been registered since 2010 and his victim is between 1-11 years old.
@@ExplosiveLandmineWhy would it matter? That’s just the legal category of the crime. She was 11.
CANNOT believe a founding father would do something like this
@ExplosiveLandmine at any age between 1-11, which is acceptable to you, lmao
@@ExplosiveLandmine brother, this is the part that bothers you and not the FACT that THE VICTIM COULD NOT BE ANY OLDER THAN 11?!? 👀💀
@@ExplosiveLandminestill horribly gross no matter the age. Is also probably for an added layer of protection for the victim
People thinking the animal is a paid actor line is a joke. I thought dogpack jokingly accused Mr. Beast of having a paid racoon actor, but then I saw another video about them actually having a domesticated racoon on set that they threw onto a bed to act like it happened randomly. This was in the 1 dollar vs 1M dollar vacation video and you can literally see the handler's finger on the back of the racoon as it comes into frame. The bed was around a foot and a half off the sand and the racoon came flying in around thigh high. So if Chucky isn't willing to admit that very minor, I wouldn't even call it animal abuse, then what other things would they deny?
They covered this in the oompaville video. In case anyone's interested and missed it.
If the finger is in frame, then it's not on accident. You're talking about a professional multi-million dollar production company and you think they left that in by accident?
@MrBrock314 do you not remember the game of thrones starbucks cup incident? mistakes happen
@@MrBrock314in the video it’s barely caught, but it’s there. I think it was an accident, but that’s not my point. It’s about them lying to cover up something that isn’t a massive deal
I thought so too at first but yes it's a trained racoon that they didn't bother to mention.
When I was a literature/English tutor, I introduced my students to The Great Gatsby. During this lesson plan, the kids compared Jay Gatsby to Mister Beast. Sadly, now I understand why.
Hopefully, he goes out like Jay
That kid was onto something
Those kids are going places
Hope he doesn’t go out like him lol
You should be proud. That's really good analysis out of kids. I don't really expect that level of analysis out of kids until college, Or at all if they aren't English Majors.
Lost credibility by falsely accusing Upper Echelon just for ego (while being wrong). As a lawyer, not even listening to the guy finish, for the purpose of Haha! He's not a laywer! I'm the lawyer! How can anyone trust your firm if you jump the gun and miss the evidence that is right there? Either incompetence or intentional. If prior, that's sad. If latter, that's pathetic.
This video has more Mr. Beast content than I've ever watched in my life, by a margin of about the amount of content this video has.
same, I personally don't care nor have any interest in watching him. But I did want to see what Legal Eagle was going to say
Same!
It shows perfectly how pop culture has splintered with the advent of streaming. Back in the 80s and 90s, and even the 2000s everyone knew who the biggest stars on TV, in music and in the film industry were. Mr Beast may just be one of the biggest celebrities on earth right now but before the recent explosion of drama most people over the age of 15 who knew him only knew him because their kids watch his content.
Congrats. Nobody cares.
@@JaceyMitchellI mean, is it really some new thing that adults without kids aren’t aware of celebrities popular with the youth? It’s not like the average 27 year old knew who Miranda Cosgrove was when iCarly started…
I would've liked to hear more legal background on the signature accusations. It seems like knowingly selling signatures that people will believe were written by one person but was actually written by others would be a form of fraud but obviously I don't know the legal contexts.
i feel like theres a reason he didnt talk about it
@@barkkobama the reason is he is hired by mr beast to stir public opinion in mr beast favor with "law" talk, so obviously he will leave many detail and mislead people
geez the most obvious clue is that "i know this firm, you don't want to mess with them, scorched earth!!!" ugh
It was written "...I'll sign it" & then he said "We'll sing it" so take it as you want
@@Tygrysmen did you mean "sign" when you said "sing" or am I missing something?
@@barkkobama Yeah same! And he didnt even speak about the chocolate lootboxes. At this point I think that MrBeast paid him well to take some heat of. LegalEagle even said that some of his friends participaded in Mrbeast videos.
Not going to lie, the situation got 100% worse with part 2 with jake's interview. I had hopes and suspicions but when I heard about his statement and what he'd gone through, I have to say, I really despise jimmy for the thing he did. NO ONE SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY and It disgusting in all levels.
will mr breast be held accountable for his war crimes? ofc not lol. The damage to his reputation has been done though.
War crimes ??@@WSH3TM
Which video is this
Most people would be overjoyed to be treated like that for 100k
@@EditsFactory1 the latest video by dogpack. He interviews jake.
You completely misrepresented upper echelons take. Is this deliberate or incompetence?
1:00 - Chapter 1 - Jimmy donaldson aka MrBeast
9:20 - Chapter 2 - Contests Vs Sweepstakes
13:50 - Chapter 3 - The FCC doesn't regulate UA-cam
21:15 - Chapter 4 - What about the NDA ?
26:00 - Conclusion
ty
Thanks
@Firestar-rm8df Playstation5
The way he segways into his self-advertisement gives me straight Saul Goodman vibes 🤣🤣
Segue, not segway
@@batmanjones655 you didnt see the electric hoverboard?
@@anuggetoflife1696😂
Everyone knew what he meant but your own OCD controls you
Ha!! Stuuupidd @@batmanjones655
Shoutout to the one UA-cam commenter applying Canadian law to a US citizen. The hero we don't need, but the one we deserve
If I recall the situation correctly, it’s because said US citizen is running a production in Canada and is therefore beholden to Canadian law?
Given how often US citizens want to try and apply US law to Canadians, even in Canada, consider it payback.
@@randomactpg57 Knew a guy in Oz, got shipped off to US jail for copyright infringement - wasnt a crime here, and he had never been to the US before
You guys are going to have a grand realization after you try bringing guns out on your vacation trip.
Following up my own comment, didn’t get far enough into the video- I thought this was about the Beast Games production in Canada. There’s a DIFFERENT video talking about the legal implications of that whole ordeal.
Is this guy prepping to join the MRBeast legal team? He seems to be doing damage control for the brand.
The illegal lotteries are one thing, but I definitely never expected Mr Beast would one day get outed as UA-cam's equivalent of John "Jigsaw" Kramer 💀
I feel like most sweepstakes having a "no purchase necessary" clause should still be counted as requiring consideration - have you ever read all of the steps they require you to take? AND you have to pay postage for EACH ENTRY?! Sorry, they know nobody is going through all that time and effort when they can just buy a box of cereal.
In the early '90s I subscribed to a sweepstakes newsletter that had the requirements for a lot of sweepstakes, including smaller ones that were not widely publicized. I hand wrote my name and address on a lot of 3 by 5 cards, and mailed them to many addresses. Won several small prizes. Only did it for a year. These were both for the main contest, and for 2nd chance drawings for anything not claimed in the main contest.
@@EinsteinsHair I did this too! My mom used to use it as practice for us writing our names and address. We definitely win stuff here and there, a copy of a movie, or a year's worth of cereal. My little brother even won us a trip to Universal Studios Florida. We were a relatively poor family, so we never would have been able to go without it. The free entry option let that happen.
Lol pretty sure the people tht actually buy the product are less likely to win btw
If you can't afford postage, you might need to get a better job. One smartphone = a lifetime of postage.
My biggest problem with this is that his primary audience are kids. They don't have the capability to understand that his videos are the modern version of reality TV (I.e, everything is faked to generate revenue).
He has 300 million subscribers. I think his primary audience is like 5% of the world.
@@harveybrowne8525 Eh, subscribers do not match his view counts so that's not a fair argument. He's not getting 300 million views a video so a vast majority of those subscribers are simply old subscribers who don't consume his content anymore. Also, promising "giveaways" to random subscribers tend to artificially inflate your subscriber numbers and he's done it basically every week since he started with youtube. Not saying he's not incredibly popular, just that you can't base anything on subscriber numbers.
@@antonhagelberg7430you may want to check the numbers.
In the last 12 months he has had a low week of 285mill views, peak week of over 1bill views.
Kids didn't have the ability to tell wresting on TV was fake. I remember we'll what it was like when that Bubble was popped for many of my classmates. What's the difference?
You people keep saying “everything is fake” literally not the case. A few things in the video are set up and scripted to increase entertainment.
Weird selective quoting of Upper Echelon
Scummy lawyers do that....
LE is a good lawyer, so...
Now do the part 2 that was dropped yesterday, where he goes in on the claims of sexual harassment and messaging minors as well as knowing a sex offender was on set and keeping them there
WHATTTTT????????????????
Him streaming on UA-cam won't save him from that, but also unsure we'll see a legal breakdown of that we all know UA-cam isn't a huge fan of that subject matter especially when the case concerns a minor.
I doubt Legal Eagle would do a video on that, too dark of a subject
@@youokboi8556 He's done PLENTY of dark subject matter here. He's done a video on Uvalde after all.
I think he might just stay away from THAT video though because there's not going to be that much to discuss from a legal perspective. This channel has always been about trying to focus on the law rather than the drama behind it. I don't think any of us need Legal Eagle to weigh in on the 'complexities' of grooming minors, lol. We already know that stuff is pretty bad. It's just a matter of if Jimmy enabled/did those things.
Far less interesting from a legal perspective.
Sounds like he's stepping into territory that might have Quinn Emanual deciding he gone from an annoyance to worthy of a defamation suit, and given it would be on Dogman in defending the suit to prove the claims are true (not on Mr Beast / Donaldson to prove the claims are false) that seems a risky move.
I'm pretty sure when DogPack talks about rigging, it's to make a point against Jimmy claiming the videos are never faked.
It's less about legality and more about authenticity and honesty.
yeah, even if a lot of the practices discussed here aren't illegal, they're definitely unethical
But, the issue is DogPack clearly made legal accusations against Mr. Beast when he himself isn’t a lawyer…and considering what you two said here, doesn’t this make DogPack a liar? Or, at the very least an unreliable whistleblower?
@@Tax_Collector01 Yeah I think DogPack will get sued to oblivion, especially because of the NDA, but that still doesn't invalidate his claims about MrBeast's unethical practices. Even if they aren't illegal, they are bad, given MrBeast's mainly child audience. He does have evidence and corroborators.
@@Tax_Collector01he didnt make any legal accusations about the videos being fake
@@Tax_Collector01No. You don't know what you're talking about.
OK, so we have irrelevant Canadian comments, here's one from the UK:
Part of our rules on raffles is that it should be fair, so £1 each or 6 for £5 is both commonplace and illegal in that it gives the person with a fiver an advantage over 5 people with £1 each.
I think that's lotteries, under the Gambling Act 2005. Raffles don't have a restriction on discounts (as long as it is legally a raffle and not a lottery).
I am not a lawyer.
Bruh… don’t do Echelon dirty like that.. you know that was taken out of context as much as anyone who watched his video all the way through did. I wonder if it has more to do with the particular segment he was criticizing at the time rather than his overall point 🤔🤔
Would you expect anything else but being disingenuous from Devon Stone?!
The picture of "Old UA-cam" as the wild west with Pink Guy making a ridiculous face couldn't be more accurate
It's crazy how the wild west internet was kinder, more effective and better than the corporate controlled one.
@@rickwrites2612 because community ran things always succeed where corporate does not
@@rickwrites2612just because it wasnt discussed doesnt mean it was kinder. old internet and current internet were both awful in different degrees.
@@saltypineapple8371I think that’s probably the best way to describe it.
There's a problem with the contestants being manipulated that I feel keeps getting overlooked. The way to get into some of this contests was to buy something, like buy this shirt during this stream for a chance to be in this contest. Another example is when he released Feastables there were tickets in random chocolate bars and the people who found them would compete in a competition for money. This people where not told that the competition was going to be rigged. They bought something believing they had a chance to take part in a fair competion for a monetary prize. Also keep in mind that Mr Beasts content mostly is targeted to children, who are even less likely to understand that this contests are not actually fair.
In addition there are also some reasons to believe that at least one of the people who won a ticket to the contest wasn't a random buyer, but someone who was given a chocolate bar containing a ticket by the Mr Beast team. There are also claims of a second person not being someone who legitimately won a ticket. So the chances to find a ticket for the people who bought Feastables might have been smaller than what had been advertised to them.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I from the USA, but I feel like when you advertise that buying something gives you a certain chance to get a certain thing, you shouldn't be allowed to lie about it. Especially when it's your child audience.
Legal Eagle is not trying to claim that what he's doing is ethical, just that it isn't illegal
This is exactly the crux of the problem with Mr Beast, and it was weirdly overlooked in this video. His audience are children and Mr Beast exploits the fact that kids often don't understand certain things that adults normally do understand. That's why the DogPack404 video is important, it's creating awareness that's easily accessible to his audience, which is fair and right to do.
@@Gavin-hq9oeHe claims that its not illegal and that its also protected by the constitution to rig competitions so it does feel like he has no problems with the ethical part either.
@JBobjork He leaves the moral judgement up to the viewer. He repeated that multiple times in the video. LegalEagle is a law channel. Not an ethics channel.
Remember, while morality and ethics SHOULD matter in law, it actually doesn't as a large portion of them were written by psychopaths trying to keep their power and create loopholes for themselves to game the system. Nothing about American law revolves around justice or doing the right thing. Not in a long time anyways.
"Laws are created like a spider's web, so if something small and insignificant falls in, it holds fast. However if something large with a lot of weight and power should hit it, it will go right through" Beast is large with a lot of weight, Dogpack is small and insignificant. Unless Jimmy did something truly heinous with irrefutable proof, the law will let him slide, almost guaranteed. If for no other reason than a little envelope with green paper in it going to the judge beforehand.
He dropped part 2 last night & it was WILD 💀💀💀💀
And also probably mostly incorrect on what's illegal and what isn't
He even said what he's covering in part III, just so Jimmy knew what to expect. He's is hitting Jimmy with nuke after nuke.
@@epic_axolotl9439ok Mr. Beast we know this is ur alt
Jimmy also knew about Delaware (Charles Jefferson) a registered sex offender in Delaware and was called Delaware because he was banned from going back there also some his older videos he says Delaware to Charles a lot. Knowing you have a person like that working for you is just disgusting
@@epic_axolotl9439 Mr beast won't love u back honey
Well, this is screaming “MrBeast, please hire me!” 😂😂
"Sir, a second drama video has hit the UA-camr."
"Is it bad?"
"No, it's worse."
_looks towards camera, returns to reading 'My Pet Goat'_
What was the first one?
@@AgathaVixen The video Legal Eagle is talking about is the first one. The worse stuff wasn't touched upon at all here
Well dog pack 404 has already made 2 separate Mr beast videos, and a third video is still on the way
Is this a 9/11 joke from the guy who went to G.W Bush and said "sir a second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack"?
I see a lot of comments here nearly celebrating this video with a "Hurrah! Mr. Beast did nothing wrong!"
You have to understand that there is a difference between what is ethically/morally correct, and what is legally allowed. LegalEagle is a lawyer, and he inspected this controversy through the lens of law. That does not excuse Mr. Beast from any of the wrongdoings mentioned in the several videos by other youtubers highlighting this issue. If you think simply being legally correct makes you a good person, then you might need to step back, grow up, and parse through this entire controversy at a later time.
He can probably just ignore it and let things blow over
There's going to be enough viewer churn that people forget.
It would be nice if he could atone and redeem himself, I think whenever he rigged games it was transparent and everyone sort of knows that it made things more interesting, or sometimes it makes it more fair or less fair. It probably evens out on a macro scale
LegalEagle also ignored some of the worst parts of the allegations 🙄
@@ayoCC Honestly, I don't expect much of a change if this does blow over (which is what I think will happen for the most part). He just doesn't seem the honest type to me, even on camera. It's part of why I always felt his stuff was too fake feeling to get into. Plus, I think most of his viewers are on the younger end (all of the viewers of him I know personally can't even drink) and that's not an age bracket big into heavy critical thinking just yet.
The thing is, none of these claims have been substantiated in any meaningful way. And especially since they are coming from a person who was fired for erratic behaviour after only a couple months, DogPack is definitely an unreliable source who has yet to prove any of the claims he's making.
was just about to make a similar comment to this but you put it into words better than i could. in summary, legal ≠ moral
one thing that dogpark404 says in that first video is that he has info that he cant disclose because of a NDA. so i think he choose which things that were already public knowledge to actually talk about, and considering the majority of the stuff he does say can be traced back to something, i dont think theres much to directly challange for breaking something. if anything its because he has NDA based knowledge that allows him to put these things together like it is. the one thing i can recall that was of his own account was a discussion on the amount of money they get from what things, but the way it was phrased might not go anywhere with that one if its even covered by something.
All that tells me is he has every reason and motivation to lie.
@@wmdkitty this is vary specific that if he is caught lying, theres tones of consequenses.
its more so he has ever motivation to spin his narative instead of reason and motivation to lie. now people do basicly group those together because how close it is and both have not stating infomation that makes it the full story. but its a vary specific line.
@@wmdkitty Watch his newest video. It interviews a much more prominent ex Beast employee, and it's pretty hard to watch.
You took uper echolon completely out of context and mis represented him so poorly. He clearly stated in his video that the illegal lottery law does not apply to UA-cam. But. Put out a the question of when should it be. It clearly would be an illegal lottery if this was covered by FCC.
Common LegalEagle misrepresentation.
You clearly didn't watch the whole video, watch the video before formulating an opinion 🤓
Mr beast also had his employees sign his signature for him during the tshirt contest. That feels wrong if you paid for an authentic signature
*Citation needed
@@GEONEgaming it's covered in the dogpack video with footage proving it
@@GEONEgaming It was cited and clipped in Dogpack's video lmao, stop being lazy
@@GEONEgamingIt's literally on video. 🤡
@@GEONEgaming citate deez
At 7:50 he did not offer the guy 10k to solve the rubik's cube, he offered the guy 10k so he doesn't solve it, essentially rigging the contest in the favour of the opposite team since the only guy that knew how to solve it was paid off.
Imagine you watched the rest of the video before saying that.
I feel so sorry for you and your lack of common sense
wasn't he paid to leave?
@@Kidozy That’s literally what he just said bro
Eagle said "he offered him 10k to solve the rubix cube" and then it cuts to the scene of Jimmy giving him 10k to get off the set. That's not giving him 10k to solve the puzzle, it's 10k for him to leave. Don't know what the rest of these people are on about in this thread, he's pointing out what eagle said isn't correct. You guys even have media literacy where you come from?
I love how if you ask a lawyer if something is "illegal" they will always give like a 30 paragraph novels which is a tl;dr of "yes, no and maybe".
Because the actual law is always whatever the judge or jury thinks, but there's 30 paragraphs of reasons why it might be one way or another.
Hey time to issue a correction as you took "Upper Echelons" statements out of context. I especially love the part where you mischaracterize what he is saying and then say "this is why people need lawyers" I believe what you meant to say was "This is why people need GOOD lawyers who watch the entire video and don't remove necessary context to prove a point" .
Yet UE still posted his video expressing his opinion a video that mind you need to to make and yet UE still couldn't get the fact straight, LE pointed out that why you need a lawyer.
"Fullfil basically every part of this law...in my opinion"
He presented his opinion as a fact, and while he added "in my opinion", that is still quite misleading.
LE pointed out about this.
You can cry as much as you want, UE isn’t a lawyer and if you make false statements expect corrections
@@waynewayne8419 It wasn't a false statements though. It was taken out of context by LE.
@@ingenjannik ‘out of context’
No it wasn’t, the guy jumped on the drama making crazy assertions so he could make money and got angry when he was wrong.
@@waynewayne8419 seems like you didnt watch his video then
I mean it's clear that this video was filmed shortly after the first Dogpack video was released, but I strongly recommend making a second video in response to Jake Weddle's horrible time with Mr. Beast, especially the part where one of the employees he talked to said that the confinement he was in literally broke the Geneva conventions. Also, Dogpack has made it clear that everything in the first video was publicly available information.
The way Jake kept looking down and to his right while speaking make it seem like he was checking a script, perhaps a teleprompter screen or similar. He did it over the entire interview, looking down and right more often than at the interviewer or the cameras. It could just be an individual "tick" of his, but it really stood out as atypical behavior for an interviewee telling their side of a true story.
Also, while I'm a fan of LegalEagle, I wonder why he didn't talk about the allegations surrounding feastable, MrBeast's chocolate, which seem to me to be the closest thing to a crime.
Geneva Convention only applies in war. There aren't any legal issue in the second video. Tons of moral issues though.
@@theKashConnoisseur I believe at the end of the video there is a clip where they do a wide of the room, then zoom in on a table Infront of him. i don't believe there was any script present in that clip.
@@theKashConnoisseurI thought the same
Also I feel a big issue with the lottery/sweepstakes is that children are participating. Im not a lawyer but Im pretty sure a lot of disclaimers say someone needs to be 18 years or older to enter due to individual state or country laws
Im pretty sure its always the parents buying or participating in the lottery
@@Bubele_ but the kids buy his chocolate in hopes to win money
@@MaxMarra812 True, I completely forgot about that bcs LE didn’t mention the chocolate lotteries for even a second which would’ve been more important than the fake videos which wasn’t meant to be a legal topic in the first place. Not even the non-functioning gambling game. How can someone making a legal video about that not mention it but focuse so much on a comment from some guy from Canada?
I tried to be clear on the main question being whether or not Mr Beast would (or should) qualify as "broadcast" based on size and scope. I would be super curious on your thoughts for that actually.
At what point should a "gameshow" with 200 million viewers across the entire world and prize pools 5x larger than traditional broadcast programs be regulated under those same guidelines. (or something similar)
Right now it doesn't seem like the FCC wants anything to do with this stuff but my interpretation was that they very well *could* if they wanted to. I guess I was wrong on that.
Upper Echelon, bonjour
Wouldn't that require a rewrite of that section that controls the FCC with regards to televised game shows and contests. Since nothing about the Federal Communications Act exactly covers "televised" programming on services such as UA-cam or Amazon Prime.
You’re just mad he’s done more good than you ever will.
@@retched It seems I was wrong here... but my understanding was that no, it wouldn't really require much of a rewrite, just for the FCC to sort of... reach out and start doing it if they wanted to.
@@RvB_Fan_since_8for his own image. So what if he donates to charity? Jeffrey Epstein also donated to Charity. Donating to Charity is not an iron clad defense when the allegations are that you not only hid a sex offender(Ava Kris Tyson) but you also hired one(Delaware), tortured a contestant, ran a game show that was ridiculously unsafe, ran illegal lotteries etc.
where the heck is the comment?
Tbh, the biggest surprise to me in all this drama is finding out Jimmy’s last name is “Donaldson”
Jimmy Donalddad
@@monterrang1Jimmy Donaldgrandfather
The descendants of fraud
@@k-sf1ld Hm. Jimmy Donalduncle?
And Chris’s last name should be Dickinson
The disappointment with Mr. Beast come from his image of being the guy who have altruistic image. That's part of his appeal and arguably helped build his enormous wealth. That's the branding that make him money and make people spend time watching his video. Nobody would feel cheated if Howard Stern do this.
His "charity" has always been paper thin. It's always been pretty clearly charity for publicity rather than publicity for charity. Sure it still does good and he can be praised for that work, but I don't think it ever reflected very much of Mr Beasts character. He makes fast food content basically, meant to be consumed without much thought full of sensationalism and cheap tricks like McDonald's is full of sugar and fat.
Honestly just reminds me of the whole Elen degeneres thing. Sern as kind as altruistic but behi d the secenes they are the complete opposite
@@surenick3460 I don't think the people who received a home, or have drinking water, can now see or hear care about the fact that Mr. Beast films it.
I don't think any of this has any relation with his altruism. He has explained several times that the altruism is both the purpose and the means of the channel. He makes money from views and viewers and the way to get views is to give away money in the most ludicrous stunts. The fact that the videos as well produced and edited should surprise no one. Is a production company that produces videos. Is what they do for a living.
@@surenick3460 It not "paper thin" when the results speak for themselves. The publicity and the views pay for the stunts and giveaways, and the stunts and giveaways attract the views. Sensationalism, cheap tricks, fast and well produced edits nothing but results of careful marketing that works for getting views. That should surprise no one. That's classic entertainment.
I have to say, Legal Eagle was out of context for moment in reference to what Dogpack said.
Dog pack didn't say fake content was Illegal but he was pointing out that MrBeast says it is not scripted but the videos are actually Scripted. There were Things like the Illegal Lottery he insinuated in the beginning but he didn't say the scripted videos were illegal.
Thanks for pointing this out
They are all buds. Seems like they are all "protecting" him and not really getting tonthe meat of what people are REALLY upset about.
@@poeticsilence047 I mean, the DogPack videos are meant to have Mr.Beast in a horrible light. And I am NOT on Mr. Beasts side in any of these to clarify, I still think what he did was wrong. However, DogPack definitely exaggerated many parts of his videos in order to keep Mr. Beast looking bad. As a lawyer, it is their job to cut back the fluff and look at primarily the facts. The facts are exactly what he mentions in the video. He might have gotten some stuff wrong as pointed out by the original poster, but he is analyzing this from a legal standpoint rather than an ethical standpoint.
@@Er4serOP Nah. I understand. Guess we have to see what happens with what people really are upset about.
@@Er4serOPand the Jeremy guy or whatever - some 20 year old who got his coworker fired and then just basically whined. These are disgruntled kids in some of their first career jobs - not exactly the most informed people.
Upper echelon don't say MrBreast has to abide by the same law as TV networks/media corporations, he just posed the question "when/at what point does a multi billion company like MrBreast have to follow the same laws?". Get your facts right, you are supposed to be a lawyer.
When you have legaleagle discussing your controversy you know you’re cooked 💀
Edit: y’all are so pressed over a joke it’s funny
Shit, yeah. I was just thinking it nothing more than just some YT drama. But this? Guess there really is something to it. Something big.
When you have legaleagle discussing you, you know your popular and can get farmed for clicks.
@@magistiko331 This
@@magistiko331nice try, Mr beast
Not really. He basically said that there’s nothing 100% illegal about anything mr. Beast has done.
There might be some issues depending on how the contracts were worded but that’s it
hahahahahahahahaha. 'I haven't met any lawyers from that firm that wasn't a complete asshole.' GOLD
1$ lawyer vs $1,000,000 lawyer is a crazy thumbnail bro 😭
This shit had me weak 😭😭
This guy is the $1,000,000 lawyer
It's been an upvoted comment on every YT video that talks about Mr Beast and legal issues for the past weeks or so. It's funny the first time...
I was looking for this comment 😂😂😂
you took Upper Echelon completely out of context, and it feels intentional just to be able to say someone is wrong. he is extremely explicit about the fact that those laws do not apply to youtube, and calls into question whether or not they should be, not whether or not they are.
So they are just padded claims for nothing?
Instead of focusing on actual issues presented he focuses on non stories and then tries to couch it as ‘I’m not a lawyer’.
This just reads like ‘this isn’t financial advice’
@@waynewayne8419 did you watch his video? he doesn't present it as actually being illegal, he is making a comparison to how it would be illegal for shows on the air that receive even LESS attention than Mr Beast, making the point that such a thing *should* be illegal and further cementing it as unethical in nature. just because checks and balances are not in place does not mean we shouldn't talk about how they should be.
@@zekerdeath You accuse LegalEagle of taking the video out of context, but ironically enough, you are doing the same thing with the LegalEagle video. This channel's job has never been to make any claims about whether something is or is not immoral, but merely, to analyze the legality of someone's actions. This video did exactly just that, and the Dog video is simply being used for context.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 ... what? are you a bot? that's a confoundingly brain dead response. legal eagle DID take it out of context and misconstrue what was said. whatever nonsense you're peddling doesn't really deny that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
@@zekerdeath Just because you do the brain-dead thing of calling me a "bot" doesn't actually mean you've disproven anything I said or even addressed it. My statements are very clear and coherent. If you don't understand them, then maybe you need to continue practicing your English language skills. But that's a you-problem, at that point.
dogpack seems to be laywered up too, he is very careful with disclosing information when being interviewed, some even go as far as calling him paranoid due to his unwillingness to answer on the spot questions.
He's a bitter fired employee with an obvious motive. Good luck with that.
@@MYNAMEISGARYshould probably whatch his most recent video then
his interview with ludwig was very telling how careful he is about the subject
@@-epicgamerseb6606 yes that is the interview im refrencing lmao.
You don't think there's a little bit more going on than that? What snout Weddle? What about the pdfs? @@MYNAMEISGARY
Didnt react to the fake signatues, or the one contestant who was in 4 videos and was an employee all along
It was written "...I'll sign it" & then he said "We'll sing it" so take it as you want
go watch some of his old videos, all the contestants were his employees or family or friends. people on the internet are so dumb. lmao
He never said he was going to do that, all he did was cover the more legal topics in the video/ the stuff in the title of the video
>All mrbeast contestants used to be employees it’s not illegal
>the website said “a member of the mrbeast team” meaning mrbeast himself didn’t have to sign the shirts
@@Glacialgaming The shirts had more than just the MB signature. The guy caught on camera using the MB signature literally signed it with (im assuming) his own signature afterwards.
If the MB signature is supposed to be jimmys signature and not just some meaningless scribble, then saying "signed by a member of the mr beast team" implies that they are all using their own signatures.
4:21 I don’t think you can say MrBeast wasn’t already very successful at the time of this 40 Mil livestream.