If you haven’t been keeping up with the whole James “PhantomLord” Varga x Twitch lawsuit debacle, then let us fill you in on some of the latest developments.
Twitch had requested that the entire case by PhantomLord be deemed null and void by citing section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The judges, though, have finally made a ruling in favor of PhantomLord. He will be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against the streaming platform and even claim damages beyond the stated $50,000.
In one of his recent tweets, PhantomLord put up some articles from The Quinlan Law Firm, which read:
“Judge Rules Trial against Twitch for PhantomLord Breach of Contract Can Proceed, Dismisses Motion for Summary Judgement Entirely”.
William J Quinlan, the attorney representing PhantomLord, stated:
“This is an important decision not only for Mr Varga to move forward in his quest to seek full compensation for the losses he suffered as a result of Twitch’s wrongful termination, but it also poses significant legal ramifications for hundreds, if not thousands, of other streamers who have signed contracts with Twitch and rely on their platform for their main source of income and professional standings.”
“This case has the potential to set a standard of rights and responsibilities for streamers and platform providers for years to come.”
PhantomLord will now be able to sue Twitch for compensation
From 2012 to 2016, PhantomLord was slowly becoming one of the most popular streamers on Twitch, and he eventually signed a contract with the company that came with a Partnership Agreement.
However, in the light of the events that followed, it would seem that Twitch dished out the ban after some of PhantomLord’s Skype logs got leaked to the public. The logs showed that not only was he a major stakeholder of the CS: GO skins gambling site CSGOShuffle, but he actually owned it.
Moreover, the logs also showed that PhantomLord would also conspire with the coder of the website and tweak the roulette in a way that would land favorable bets.
Twitch never issued a public statement about the reason behind the ban, as they wanted to stay in line with their policy.