- Wow! I have a crazy one for you,
but before we jump into it,
I just wanna say today is my birthday,
toot my own horn.
Also, just in case you're not aware,
Joe Biden just recently passed a law,
where because it's my birthday....
you have to like, comment,
especially if you've never left a comment
on this video before
and maybe even share today's show,
especially because a number of the stories actually could
have huge consequences, both nationally and internationally.
But yeah, with that said,
welcome back to the Philip de Franco show you
beautiful bastard, and let's just jump into it.
You know, the first thing that we have to
talk about today is this massive news
around Ethan Klein, AKA H3 productions,
AKA, a guy who just seems
to be a lightning rod for lawsuits.
Even if you don't know who Ethan Klein is,
You love them, you hate him.
It doesn't even matter because the story is
bigger than just one man.
This is a story in a lawsuit that's about piracy versus
fair use, it's about defamation verse reporting,
the legal limitations of what you can report when a lawsuit
is not a lawsuit.
And so just like even client's last fair use lawsuit,
This could be precedent setting. So with that said,
as far as who's on the other end of this lawsuit,
you have Ryan Kavanaugh who, if you don't know,
is a film producer and businessman,
as well as a co-founder majority holder in Triller.
And yesterday he filed a lawsuit against Ethan though
Things actually started with a spat we covered in the past
For that being when Triller initially
sued Ethan and H3 for airing a portion of it's
Jake Paul versus Ben Askren fight,
during one of his podcasts earlier this year
Triller had filed a massive lawsuit against
several entities that it accused of pirating
the fight at that time.
But a court dismissed the majority of the defendants.
Thought it did allow for Triller to refile against outlets
individually leading to a separate suit against H3.
And that lawsuit alleged copyright infringement
Among other claims. At that time,
Ethan hit back saying that his inclusion of the fight should
fall under fair use, which then leads us to yesterday.
Ryan Kavanaugh wrote an essay titled the dark side
of the power of social media,
Explaining more about his recent lawsuit and
why he's saying that he filed it.
There we saw Ryan repeat claims that Ethan pirated and
broadcasted that fight to millions of people resulting in
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales for Triller
While Ethan profited.
Also saying that Ethan initially seemed
willing to settle,
but then quote against all common legal practices rather
than negotiating in good faith.
He disclosed his views on the suit and the terms of the
discussed settlement on his podcast to millions of viewers
and further disparaged Triller.
Ryan going on to claim that
this was a bad faith tactic in violation
of litigation Laws.
And all of that is kind of an explanation of the
first part of the story,
but then it moves from a piracy issue to a defamation issue.
Because from there,
Ryan claimed that Ethan has posted video after video
attacking and slandering me personally,
despite the fact that while I am a shareholder and
co-founder, I am not Triller, right, among other things,
accusing Ethan of trying to use this video titles to
optimize search results. So that as videos show up,
when someone searches the name, Ryan Kavanaugh.
Ryan adding that Ethan's followers have
amplified the attacks.
Ryan also specifically alleging
that despite the fact that he
has never met Ethan,
Ethan has posted more than eight podcasts,
disparaging him with those podcasts,
including false and harmful information.
Ryan also pointing to a website Ethan made that
compares him to Harvey Weinstein and then claimed that Ethan
sent paid traffic to push disparaging articles to the top of
Google search results about him.
And saying that he's encouraged
H3 fans to attack them online and threaten his family.
Ryan additionally brought up a variety of articles that
Ethan has referenced in the past with a headline that says
Ryan was accused of running a Ponzi scheme.
But Ryan arguing that Ethan is bringing up this article in
bad faith because an update in the story notes that the
situation was solved in that the
complaint was never intentionally filed.
Ryan also accused Ethan of making other defamatory remarks
like claims of Ryan is not properly
paid as employees or a nanny. And that he's gotten two DUIs,
Which Ryan says it's false.
Kavanaugh also alleging that Ethan paid Wikipedia editors to
quote destroy his page with negative addition,
started a Reddit thread for people to plan attacks against
him and gloat about their successes and caused his followers
and paid bots to give the Triller app a bad online rating
with Ryan saying all of this amounts of textbook malicious
behavior intended to harm me and Triller.
This leaves me with no choice, but to sue
one malignant internet personality with a large
following the equivalent of an angry child with a loaded gun
can cause disproportionate harm to anyone using lies,
slander and SEO and suffer few, if any consequences.
Now I understand that is a lot.
It's kind of this shotgun blast of accusations.
And we could only hit on so many things and
more could even be on the way,
But I will link to the full article down below,
as you can see every detail as he explained it.
But of course,
in a situation where we're talking about a lawsuit, right?
I just explained the accusations from one side.
What does the other side think?
So with that, I reached out to Ethan Klein
for a comment or a response
regarding the accusations or any of this in general.
And he gave a lengthy response,
With Ethan starting off by saying,
Ryan Kavanaugh's first malicious lie is that
he claims I pirated his event.
Fair use is at the heart of this lawsuit.
Same as with our first lawsuit,
used a short clip of the event during an extremely critical
commentary during a three hour podcast,
Ryan Kavanaugh tries to blame me for his event
being widely pirated,
which is pure defamation.
He didn't even react to the event until days after it was
streamed on pay-per-view. If he cared about pirates,
why did he drop all of his other lawsuits
against actual pirates,
but only kept the one against me.
Ethan going on to accuse
Ryan of targeted legal harassment,
asking why his wife's Teddy Fresh brand
is listed in the suit
When he says it has nothing to do with the case at hand,
Ethan also denying that he told his fans
to harass Ryan online,
Claiming that he's actually done the opposite
on multiple occasions.
Then he brought up a series of articles that address some of
the specific accusations Ryan made,
including the Variety situation we mentioned,
Ethan claiming that he made it clear that the accusation was
retracted, adding that if Ryan quote has a problem with
the article, take it up with variety.
One of the most trusted news sources
in entertainment, not me.
Ethan then addressing Ryan's claims that he was
spreading false information regarding DUIs
and paying employees.
But Ethan arguing that he was just referencing information
made available in articles by well-regarded news sources,
Pointing to three New York times articles from 2008 that say
that Ryan was charged for drunk driving in 2006 and was
arrested for the same thing again in 2008,
Also sharing a vanity fair article
that brings up the same arrests.
Regarding the accusation about Ryan not paying his nanny
Ethan pointed to an article from Fox San Diego that says a
Ryan's former nanny sued him for 175,000 in lost wages after
she was abruptly fired in 2020,
that reportedly was just two months into a contract
that was meant to last over a year with Ethan writing,
Again, I am not creating any of these claims,
but merely reading what has already been published
by well-respected news sources.
How was that defamation?
Regarding the accusations that Ethan
sent bots to give Triller negative reviews Ethan said that
Ryan is solely blaming him when other big influencers have
been critical of the app as well,
Including Noah Beck a Triller advisor,
and shareholder who made a Tik Tok complaining about how
Triller's camera is flipped.
With Ethan claiming that he's only told his fans
to give honest and genuine reviews.
Ethan also going on to share a Hollywood reporter article
where an investor reportedly told a judge
In a town full of scam artists,
posers false profits, and flim-flam men,
Ryan C. Kavanaugh is in a Hollywood class by himself,
Ethan also linking to articles from Variety and Deadline
that say a judge found Ryan had fabricated a memo
which included false sexual harassment claims
against an executive at his previous production company.
With Ethan closing his statement to us by saying,
Ryan Kavanaugh is a business elite who was used to suing,
harassing and breaking the law with no consequences,
He wields the legal system like a malignant tyrant,
uses it to silence his critics.
And now to stifle fair use,
Something we all on YouTube should care about.
With Ethan also addressing the entire situation
with Ryan on Twitter, writing
Ryan Kevin is trying to get my channel banned from YouTube,
a powerful media person who has gone to every length to
destroy me for criticizing him.
Everyone needs to pay attention now.
Not only is fair use on the line,
but the powerful trying to shut down channels for criticism
with a mend pointing to a Wikipedia user who he thinks might
be Ryan saying that the user admitted to sending legal
notices to YouTube and Twitch to get H3H3 banned.
And in then that same Twitter thread,
Ethan shared what he called a threatening and Instagram DM
that Ryan allegedly sent him,
which shows Ryan laying out some of the accusations we just
mentioned and warning Ethan to stop.
So you have all of that,
but then there's also an aspect of the story that I feel
like is getting overlooked because obviously there's a lot
of big accusations being thrown around, a lot of drama.
But it was hit on really well by Eric Gardner
and the Hollywood Reporter who explained
a defamation case from the controversial entertainment
veteran figures to explore a
secret about the court system that hardly
anyone knows about.
Remember that variety article that both Ethan and Ryan
have mentioned? So as Gardener and the Hollywood reporter
explained, about a decade ago an entity called
courthouse news service began suing
local court officials around the nation for not providing
immediate or near immediate online access to court filings.
And adding this service experienced some success,
making the argument that the first and 14th amendment
required, nothing short of transparency.
And as a result,
the Los Angeles superior court system opened a media portal
for reporters.
Gardner going on to explain this is
where it gets problematic.
Noting it takes a bit of time for court filings to be
processed. Lawsuits are indexed and assigned.
And for the few hours it takes for this to happen.
Reporters get access to what the LA superior court calls
quote unfiled complaints, with the court
even stamping the words unfiled
on every page of these filings.
Gardner then going on to ask and answer the question,
what would happen if a lawyer submitted a complaint into the
system and then came to a quick settlement before the
complaint got indexed explaining that's what happened
two years ago, explaining that in 2017,
Kavanaugh launched a new company, Proxima Media,
and along with an individual named Elon Spar,
he pursued a new entertainment stock exchange,
but saying this then led to Kavanaugh and Spar
pointing fingers at each other over-funding and secrets,
but then reporting within hours of submitting the complaint
Kavanaugh's rep was calling media outlets and insisting that
no lawsuit had actually been filed
and that news stories on the matter were defamatory
with Gardner noting, I know because
I was the recipient of one of those phone
calls, reporting that Kavanaugh,
even put out a statement at that time,
Accusing Variety and the Hollywood Reporter of having
quote,
attempted to smear him by quoting from Spars
seeming legal filings,
but then adding that Kavanaugh never did
sue the Hollywood Reporter nor Variety
over the stories about his tussle with Spar.
Saying whether he was satisfied by the
clarification's appended to the articles or
cowered by the admonishment,
that fair reporting privilege would cover these stories.
He backed off. And potentially related to that situation,
or now Ethan, Gardener writing,
that when it comes to defamation law, most states,
including California have a defense known as
fair reporting privilege,
which basically means that anyone is free to talk about
judicial and other governmental proceedings without veering
liability for repeating allegations made there.
The only caveat is that the report has to be both a fair and
true account of the public proceeded and noting the media
relies mightily on this privilege.
And there are noting the example of how Buzzfeed beat
defamation suits over its publication of the
infamous Trump dossier.
So yeah, like I said,
at the beginning of this story,
a lot of stuff at play here and depending on how things go,
potentially massive consequences, but for now,
we're going to have to wait to see what happens though.
I mean, this is a developing story,
even right before I uploaded today's show,
I saw Ethan Klein going live, addressing this matter.
So we may see even more information,
more updates, but while we wait to see
what happens from here.
I do want to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts regarding any and all aspects of this
story because wow, wow, wow.
But from that,
let's take a second to pay the bills and thank the fantastic
sponsor of today's show Squarespace and over the past year
or so,
a lot of you have found your passion projects and what truly
makes you happy.
Whether that means finally getting your independent business
off the ground or creating a place to share your homemade
goods, new favorite hobby, current obsession,
or maybe even a personal blog to get all those thoughts out
of your head, no matter what you're doing,
Squarespace's there to help. It's so easy.
There's nothing to install patch or upgrade ever in creating
a beautiful website with Squarespace is all one platform has
never been so simple.
It's extremely intuitive and easy to use, plus with
Squarespace and get access to all of their marketing tools
and analytics and personalized support from their
award-winning customer care team via email or live chat,
whatever you need, they're available 24/7 to help out.
So if you want to check it out and see why so many others
have loved it, see if it's perfect for you.
Go ahead and start your free trial today over at
squarespace.com/Phil. And when you realize you love it,
make sure you enter an offer code,
"Phil" to get 10% off your first purchase.
And then if you happen to notice,
you're starting to get more DMS as of today,
more people sliding in.
Unfortunately it's not because you're oozing of charisma.
It's not your sparkling personality. It's a shitty reason.
A \new federal rule just went into effect yesterday that
now allows debt collectors to message you via email text,
and even through DMS on social media.
Now with this new rule,
there are also several rules that debt collectors will still
have to follow. For one, if they reach out to you
on social media, it does have to be a private message.
It can't be a public comment section or anything viewable to
anyone, but you. Two
if they reach out by trying to friend you
or add you as a contact,
they have to be clear up front that they are pursuing a debt
and three,
they have to give you a way to opt out of receiving further
communication from them on the social media platform
they reach out on. But still with this,
you have collection agencies,
unsurprisingly praising the new rules,
which were green lit by a Trump appointed former director of
the consumer financial protection bureau,
who said that they intended to quote modernize the legal
regime for debt collection,
whoever outside of the soul-sucking debt collector
community. A lot of people aren't happy with this
with for example,
the writer for the Washington post pointing out that people
are concerned that quote, if left unchecked,
this expanded access to consumers could very well contribute
to new ways to harass struggling consumers.
And adding, I've followed this issue for years.
And while many companies operate within the law,
illegal operations can be with a lot of damage to innocent
consumers, debt collection, isn't wicked,
but it can lead to embarrassing,
unethical and illegal tactics.
And there are noting for example,
that some companies try to collect debts even after they're
no longer available because for these companies,
they're like, why not shake the tree to see what drums?
And for me personally, this is a story and issue.
It's hard for me not to be biased on.
I get very emotional with this topic.
I live a very privileged and fortunate life right now,
but when I was a young kid,
I got in a lot of debt and
I had to deal with debt collectors.
And probably a lot of those people are just regular people
that have a job,
but then there are others that just take it to a weird
inhumane, cruel level. But yeah, on that happy note.
I'll pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts regarding these new rules?
And then let's talk about Omicron, ah just as I felt
like things were getting back to normal.
The new COVID variant has been found on nearly every
continent with the vast majority of those cases,
being in South Africa and other countries in the region that
leading to many regions closing travel to try and keep
Omicron out.
Some of the strictest measures actually coming from Japan
and Israel, both of which have closed their borders,
essentially all foreigners,
regardless of where they came from. And on top of that,
at least in Israel,
Israelis need to quarantine when returning home,
regardless of whether or not they were vaccinated to help
try and contain any potential Omicron help rate.
But most of the measures issued by places like the
United States, many European countries,
South Korea and China have centered around severely
restricting or completely suspending flights from Southern
African countries. However,
there is mounting evidence that the region and especially
South Africa itself is getting a bad rap and that the cat
was already out of the bag.
It's increasingly looking like the virus was already in
continents like Europe before its discovery was even made on
November 24th. For example,
Dutch officials have now said that they found Omicron in
samples that were taken on November 19th and November 23rd,
far earlier than it was believed to have ever first entered
Europe.
And even before Omicron was officially identified.
On top of that, WHO
officials are still trying to determine if Omicron is
actually from Southern Africa at all. So right now,
it is possible that that region is being unfairly targeted
with travel restrictions,
just for being in the place that it was discovered in,
had the most time to test for patients for it and was
transparent about it.
Which is also something that the head of the who hit on
recently. Saying,
I think I will understand the concern of all countries to
protect their citizens against a variant that we don't yet
fully understand,
but I am equally concerned that several member states are
introducing blunt blanket measures that are not
evidence-based or effective on their own,
and which will only worsen inequity, but either way,
Omicron has been traveling fast around the globe.
And in fact,
just today here in the U S. The first Omicron case confirmed
that not to brag in California, number one in the country,
another gold medal and likely adding to
people's concerns here.
That patient who returned from South Africa last week had
been fully vaccinated though. Also on that note,
they were only showing mild symptoms,
which many experts have pointed out that while the vaccines
that we have right now,
their efficacy may be lower against Omicron.
There's still the belief that this can protect you from
severe symptoms in hospitalization.
That being said to reiterate,
there are so many unknowns with this virus,
talked about preliminary data people wondering, you know,
is this more contagious? You know,
can the current vaccines handle it,
whether it's more or less deadly.
But also all of that doesn't mean that
people shouldn't be cautious.
People also shouldn't forget about the Delta variant,
which still accounts for most of the cases raging around the
world. And unfortunately,
as I think more and more people have been coming to realize
this may just be the new world that we live in.
I don't think that it's cynical.
I think it's more of a realistic view to say that there's
not going to ever be enough vaccinated people for this to
not just keep mutating. It really, if anything,
a lot of this,
I feel like really bolsters the idea that dealing with COVID
may end up like dealing with the flu, yes a more deadly flu,
but where every year we might have to get vaccinated to deal
with the most prevalent strain.
And then in huge national news with massive implications,
we need to talk about the fact that the Supreme court has
now officially begun hearing oral arguments and the biggest
abortion case in decades as part of a challenge that could
overturn Roe V. Wade
And reverse legal precedents for reproductive rights
that have been in place for nearly half a century.
Right and as we've talked about before,
this case is based on a 2018 law out of Mississippi,
the band most abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions where
quote severe fetal abnormality, but not rape and incest.
So with that, Mississippi is only abortion clinic sued.
Arguing at the law was unconstitutional.
Then both the district judge and a panel of the U S court of
appeals for the fifth circuit ruled against the law and the
state appealed to the Supreme court.
Notably when Mississippi asked the justices to take up its
case in June of 2020,
the state's attorney general Lynn Fitch explicitly stated
that the petitions questions quote,
do not require the court to overturn Roe or planned
parenthood versus Casey,
which is the 1992 case where the Supreme court ruled and
reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the
fetus can live outside the womb,
which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.
But all of that was before the courts,
conservatives solidified their super majority with the
appointment of justice, Amy Coney Barrett,
who personally opposes abortion following the death of
liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So after the justices agreed to take up this case,
Fitch filed a brief asking the high court to overturn Roe
and Casey. And so to be clear as a result,
if SCOTUS rules in favor of Mississippi,
it doesn't just impact the state.
This affects abortion rates nationwide.
Mississippi is one of the many Republican held states that
have passed abortion restrictions that lower courts have
struck down because they violate Supreme court decisions on
fetal viability. And as a result,
almost all of those laws are not in fact with the exception
of Texas, of course,
because SCOTUS refused to block it while legal challenges
play out. So if the justices uphold the Mississippi law,
depending on the scope of their ruling,
there are two possible overarching outcomes. First,
the court could decide to uphold the 15 week ban,
but not agree with Fitch's motion asking them to overturn
Roe.
So that would undo the precedent for fetal viability set
under Casey and allow states to ban abortions earlier,
It would leave the 1973 ruling intact.
But if the justices do decide to get rid of Roe,
the impact would be way more extreme.
Not only would it create a path for more states to pass laws
that limit abortions,
but it would also allow abortion bans to take effect
incredibly quickly,
The 22 states currently having laws in place
that could be used
to restrict abortion. If Roe was struck down,
that including 12 states that have what are known
as trigger laws,
that would literally ban all or most abortions immediately,
if the precedent was overturned,
but we're not going to know what's going to happen for a
little while. Now, the court is hearing the arguments today.
Yes,
but they aren't expected to roll on the matter until spring
or early summer though, as I was recording today,
We started seeing reports that the conservatives
justices signal today that they were leaning towards
upholding Mississippi's ban, but notably here,
the justices did not indicate whether they would agree to
overrule Roe entirely. So with all of that said, yes,
this does impact women's rights in general,
but also sets up a major matter for the 2022 midterms.
Especially if the conservative justices rule in favor of
Mississippi. While,
you would obviously know what's going to happen in very blue
and very red states.
This could be an all-out war in purple states,
especially because public polls have shown support for the
president remaining strong over the years.
And ultimately that is where this story and today's show
ends. Of course, with that, whether it be this final story,
the first one, anything in between,
I'd love to know your thoughts and those comments down
below. And of course, as always, my name's Philip de Franco,
you've just been filled in.
I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.