Connect with us

Industry

Tfue Suing FaZe Clan Over “Oppressive” Contract

Published

6 months ago

on

  • Popular gamer Turner “Tfue” Tenney filed a lawsuit against the gaming organization that he is a part of known as FaZe Clan.
  • Tenney’s lawsuit alleges that his “Gamer Agreement” with FaZe Clan is “oppressive,” and claims that his contract allows the organization to take up to 80 percent of his revenue from brand deals.
  • FaZe Clan has denied the accusation and the organization’s founder, FaZe Banks, posted a video and a series of tweets providing his side of the story and portraying the lawsuit as a betrayal.

Lawsuit

Popular gamer Turner “Tfue” Tenney filed a lawsuit Monday against FaZe Clan, the gaming organization he’s been a part of since April of 2018.

The lawsuit describes Tenney’s “gamer agreement” with FaZe Clan as “oppressive.” It claims that it allows the organization to take up to 80 percent of his earnings from brand deals brought by FaZe Clan and 5 percent of his earnings from tours and public appearances.

According to the lawsuit, Tenney tried to end his official agreement with the FaZe Clan back in September based on the organization’s “numerous breaches” of contract but says they would not let him break the deal.

One of those breaches included FaZe Clan receiving third-party payments from sponsorships and not giving the payments from those deals to Tenney.

The lawsuit goes on to say that FaZe Clan uses “illegal Gamer Contracts” to prevent Tenney from pursuing other brand deals that might be better than the deals acquired by FaZe Clan, and argues that it is illegal because it prevents him from competing in the marketplace.

Significantly, the suit claims that FaZe Clan’s gamer agreements violate California’s Talent Agency Act because the organization acts like a talent agency by procuring “employment and engagements,” but does not have a business license to operate as an agency

Due to this alleged violation, Tenney’s lawyers have also claimed that FaZe Clan violated the Talent Agency Act in a petition to the California Labor Commissioner on May 15.  

“Faze Clan pressures and encourages young artists like Tenney to perform dangerous stunts,” Tenney’s attorneys wrote in the petition, which was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit. The suit also noted that Tenney suffered an injury that resulted in “permanent disfigurement.”

“Faze Clan also encourages underage drinking and gambling in Faze Clan’s so-called “Clout House” and “FaZe House.” The petition said.

FaZe Clan Statement

The gaming community responded to the lawsuit almost immediately.

FaZe Banks, who owns FaZe Clan, took to Twitter to defend the group writing “we do NOT and have never taken 80% of anyones prize money,” adding “We’ve collected $0 from Turners prize money. ZERO.”

FaZe Clan also posted a statement on Twitter claiming that they have not collected any of Tenney’s tournament winnings or any money earned through his Twitch, YouTube, or other social media accounts.

“In fact, we have only collected a total of $60,000 from our partnership, while Tfue has earned millions as a member of FaZe Clan,” the statement said.

“While all our contracts are different with each player, all of them – including TFue’s – have a maximum of 20% to FaZe Clan in both tournament winnings as well as content revenue, with 80% to the player. In Turner’s case, neither of those have been collected by FaZe Clan.”

A few hours later, FaZe Clan posted a follow-up statement to clarify the claim that they take 80% of branding earnings. “There is a clause in Tfue’s original contract where FaZe Clan could take 80% of the brand deal we introduce to him,” FaZe Clan wrote. “Let us be clear that we have NEVER collected on that clause from Tfue or any other FaZe Clan member.”

The statement went on to say that the clause is from old contracts and that the new contracts only give FaZe Clan 20 percent. The organization also says that they have been working with Tenney and have offered him “numerous versions of an improved contract,” but said he has “rejected or ignored” all of them.

The statement also said that FaZe Clan has “encouraged and supported any FaZe member interested in hiring a third party manager and/or agent.”

Faze Bank’s Video

Later in the day, Banks uploaded his own video called “Dear TFue.”

In the video, Banks describes how emotional and hard it is for him to deal with the situation because he was so blindsided by someone who he was close to. He then goes on to break down all of the allegations piece by piece, starting with the claim that Faze Clan took 80 percent of Tenney’s earnings.

Banks says that FaZe Clan has only ever made $60,000 off Tenney, which is just a fraction of the money he makes. “He earns a hell of a lot of money. A lot more money than you guys know,” FaZe Bank’s said.

“But I can tell you, that $60,000 of his total amount of money that he’s made is probably closer to like 0.1 percent. And mind you that’s $60,000, cause where it came from is important, that $60,000 came from two brand deals that we brought Turner that we took 20 percent of. So that is an 80 percent split to Turner and then the rest of the 20 goes to Faze clan.”

“We have collected zero percent of his prize winnings, we have collected zero on YouTube, we have collected zero on Twitch his subs, his ad revenue, nothing. Literally nothing,” said Banks.

In an earlier tweet, Bank’s shared a video clip of Tenney saying he keeps all his earnings. “Do I keep all my earnings? Yeah,” Tenney said in the video. “All like the regular tournament winnings, yeah.”

In “Dear Tfue,” Banks also addresses the allegation that FaZe Clan made Tenney and others do dangerous stunts. “Turner we all know you’re a fucking sicko. You jump off of shit, you’ve been doing that far, far, far before you met us,” he said. “And if anyone was pressuring anyone into doing it it was you.”

Banks goes on to discuss the claim that Tenney was pressured into drinking. “We went to a party at your current girlfriends house before you were 21,” he said. “Steve chugged a handle of alcohol and you were trashed in the video and you were 20 years old at the time.”

Banks also tweeted a video of Tenney shotgunning beers back in 2016.

Cloakzy Response

Tenney’s has still not come out and said anything.

However, on Monday, Tenney’s gaming partner Cloakzy release a statement of his own. Cloakzy he said that he did not want to speak on behalf of Tenney, but still wanted to share his point of view.

“Banks shouldn’t be getting hate for anything and you’re all braindead if you think he has anything to do with anything bad that has happened,” Cloakzy said. “Everything that you see FaZe doing today is because of him. He has shown us nothing but love and appreciation as he does every player that has ever played for FaZe.”

“Unfortunately we didn’t see eye to eye with SOME management,” he continued. “Lots of people wanted to make a lot right but their hands were tied, contract things that happened behind the scenes/situations that will not be brought to light not involving banks.”

Cloakzy also made a note to tell everyone to wait until everyone in the situation has spoken before jumping to conclusions.

Bank’s retweeted the statement and wrote: “I appreciate this tweet more than you could ever know.”

As for Tenney’s lawsuit, it could have huge implications for the esports community. If he wins, it could potentially change how esports is regulated. The lawsuit claims that because esports is a new industry, “there is little or no regulation,” but adds that the need for it is “dire.”

According to the lawsuit Tfue, “seeks to shift the balance of power to gamers and content creators/streamers.”

“As a result of this action, others will hopefully take notice of what is.”

See what others are saying: (The Hollywood Reporter) (VICE) (The Verge)

Related Topics:

Industry

YouTube Family Vlogger Petitions FTC Ahead of 2020 COPPA Enforcement

Published

4 days ago

on

November 7, 2019

By

  • YouTube will soon remove personalized ads from children’s content after the Federal Trade Commission determined that it had violated children’s privacy laws by placing targeted ads over kids’ content.
  • Following YouTube’s announcement, creators like Jeremy Johnston of J House Vlogs are now bringing their concerns directly before the Federal Trade Commission during their open window, which closes Dec. 9.
  • Among other concerns, creators are asking the FTC to provide a better definition of “child-directed” content out of fear that they may still lose ads on video that may be deemed “attractive,” but not necessarily directed at children.

YouTubers Lobby FTC

Children’s content creators and family bloggers on YouTube are lobbying against upcoming changes to an online child privacy law, which they say will affect the quality of their videos and how those videos make money.

As of Thursday afternoon, a Change.org petition arguing against the changes has attracted more than 38,000 signatures. The petition was started by Jeremy Johnston who, along with his wife Kendra, run the family vlogging channel J House Vlogs.

In September, YouTube announced that it would be changing the way it displays ads on children’s content. The changes are meant to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act after the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General Letitia James accused YouTube of illegally collecting personal information from children to show them targeted ads.

Regarding ads, YouTube uses two types: general and personalized ads. General ads appear regardless of a user’s viewing history, but personalized ads look at a user’s viewing history to present products or services a user may be more interested in. 

Because of the changes to COPPA, YouTube said it will remove all personalized ads on children’s content in January. The FTC also said it would hear public comments until Oct. 23 before enforcing new COPPA guidelines.

As a result, Johnston has lobbied the Federal Trade Commission in an attempt to add exceptions to children’s content creators. 

Johnston Speaks with Rogue Rocket

In an interview with Rogue Rocket, Johnston said he filed a request to extend the FTC’s public comments period until Dec. 9, which was later approved.

Johnston told Rogue Rocket he made the filing after meeting with the FTC. During the meeting, he said the commission was unaware that personalized and general ads paid different amounts to creators. 

While Johnston said he thought the FTC was legitimately trying to do what’s best for children, he also said FTC was largely unaware of creators’ concerns beforehand. 

Regarding his own channel, Johnston said he and his wife have already decided to pull the plug on a planned children’s channel called J House Jr.

While he said big creators can find other ways to generate money, through brand deals or other projects, he also said losing personalized ads can be devastating for channels.

“That isn’t going to be available for the small creators in the future, and that’s a big reason why I’m speaking out,” he told Rogue Rocket. “I wouldn’t be doing all of this if it was just about my channel. But I’m considering other people like me or other people five years, 10 years from now who want to get going. I’m so grateful that when I took that leap of faith to say ‘I’m going to do YouTube full-time’ that ad revenue made that possible.”  

Although Johnston said he understands the need for parents to have control in their kids’ privacy online, he said the new changes won’t do that. 

“We care about children’s privacy,” he said. “We are just saying that this regulation is going to do more harm than good. I think it’s really important that we all recognize that the majority of parents are letting their children watch YouTube main.”  

“We’re wanting parents to continue making that choice with the government coming in and overriding the parents’ decision,” he continued. “If parents were really concerned with personalized ads, it raises the question, why are they all letting their children watch YouTube main?” 

What’s in the Petition?

Specifically, the creators and supporters who’ve signed that petition are asking the FTC to provide a statement on how COPPA will be enforced against creators, as well as clarify the definition of “child-directed” content. 

One major concern for creators is the specific use of the language “child-directed.” Currently, the FTC is debating whether or not to add “child-attractive” content, ie. content that is marketed to a general audience but could still be considered friendly for children to watch. 

The petition also requests that the FTC delay enforcement any changes until it finishes reviewing COPPA.

It ends by asking the FTC to encourage parents to use apps like YouTube Kids instead of forcing creators to turn off personalized ads.

According to Bloomberg, YouTube Kids currently only attracts about 1% of YouTube’s total audience even though kids’ content is the most-viewed on YouTube.

Why Is This Important to Viewers?

While some viewers find ads annoying, many creators make money by placing ads in front of their videos.

According to Tubefilter, general ads can bring in anywhere from 60 to 90% less than personalized ads. Creators fear that the loss of revenue could, in turn, hurt the quality of their videos. 

In fact, Johnston says a lot of the money made from J House Vlogs videos goes back into making quality content on the channel.

In addition to that, creators also worry their content could be fined for violating COPPA, with that fine being up to $42,530. Creators like Johnston and Derral Eves say that these concerns could also result in more mature content on YouTube. 

See what others are saying: (Bloomberg) (Tubefilter)

Continue Reading

Industry

Shane Dawson Accused of Using Tati Westbrook and James Charles Drama as Clickbait Amid Success of Massive Beauty Launch

Published

1 week ago

on

November 4, 2019

By

  • Shane Dawson’s collaboration with Jeffree Star officially launched online and in stores Friday.
  • Fans crashed the website within seconds and stood in line for hours to get their hands on the products, which have since completely sold out. 
  • Amid all the craze surrounding the launch, Dawson is also facing criticism from viewers who say he used the Tati Westbrook- James Charles drama for clickbait in the trailer since it has yet to be mentioned in the series.

Shane Dawson Beauty Launch 

Shane Dawson and Jeffree Stars’ highly anticipated makeup and merchandise collaboration finally launched Friday and quickly took over the internet, meanwhile, fans are still wondering if YouTube beauty drama will be included in upcoming episodes of his series. 

The YouTubers released two eyeshadow palettes, a collection of liquid lipsticks, a line of merchandise, and more. But fans had completely overwhelmed the website before the company behind it, Shopify, could even finish listing each item for sale. 

Minutes after the scheduled launch time, Star tweeted that the site had crashed, adding “Shane’s in a ball crying on the floor.” 

Issues persisted for hours, with many users complaining about the site crashing, error messages, missing confirmation emails, and other problems.

Those who chose to purchase the palette at their local Morphe stores also had to wait in huge lines to get their hands on any of the products. 

As many people expected, the Conspiracy palette was completely sold out by the middle of the day, with the rest of the line selling out shortly after.

Although we don’t know the exact figures just yet, it seems the launch has already broken records according to Jeffree Star, who said the statistics will be released in the coming days. 

Fans Accuse Shane of Clickbait 

The build-up for the release was of course set up by each installment of Dawson’s docu-series, “The Beautiful World of Jeffree Star.” Of the six parts that have been released so far, the lowest viewed episode sits at over 14 million views, while all of the episodes combined make up over 110 million views. 

Despite the success of the episodes so far, some fans are upset that Dawson has not included any footage from the infamous Tati Westbrook and James Charles drama. 

As you might remember, massive beauty influencer James Charles lost nearly 3 million subscribers in May after his former mentor Tati Westbrook posted her infamous “Bye Sister” video, publicly announcing the end of their friendship. One stand out moment in the video involved her claim that Charles uses his celebrity status to sexually manipulate straight men. 

Star and Dawson both publicly expressed their support for Westbrook during the whole ordeal, with Star even going so far as to call Charles a predator.  After apologies and explanations from Charles, Star, and Westbrook, the drama eventually blew over and Charles’ subscriber count bounced back.

Fans were hoping to see more about Star and Dawson’s involvement and opinions on the situation in his series and it seemed like they were going to get exactly that. In his trailer for the docu-series, Dawson included footage of him reacting to Westbrook’s initial video and Charles’ subscriber loss.

As of now, the series has seemed to move in chronological order without any mention of the drama, which has left some fans feeling disappointed. Some have even accused Dawson of using the incident as clickbait for views.

Some suggested that Dawson excluded the drama out of respect for those involved, especially since Westbrook and Charles both recently released products last month. Others said it would be harmful to bring it all back up again after everyone has seemingly moved past it. 

Fans also said it was likely a decision to focus on the business aspect of the beauty industry rather than the drama. They specifically pointed to a poll Dawson posted early on in the series asking viewers what they wanted to see more of, though viewers seem to be split on what the results actually were. Meanwhile, others pointed out that there are still more episodes set to come.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (PopBuzz)(Mashable)

Continue Reading

Industry

YouTuber Jaclyn Hill Defends “Canceled” Halloween Costume

Published

2 weeks ago

on

October 29, 2019

By

  • Critics are slamming beauty YouTuber Jaclyn Hill for appearing at her Haloween party this weekend as a “canceled” version of herself. 
  • Some thought she was making light of her recent lipstick scandal and mocking customers who were upset with her over the failed product launch. 
  • Hill addressed the backlash, saying the costume was not about her customers or her lipsticks but instead was a comment about the community and cancel culture.

Jaclyn HIll’s Costume 

Beauty YouTuber Jaclyn Hill has responded to backlash over her Halloween costume – a “canceled” version of herself. 

Hill hosted a party at her temporary home in Los Angeles, California Saturday night, which was packed with dozens of her friends and fellow YouTubers like James Charles and Nikita Dragun. 

But the main talk of the party online was Hill’s costume. The beauty guru wore a black dress with red letters that spelled out “SHE’S CANCELED” and “JACLYN HILL IS CANCELED.” She also sported some fake wounds and blood to add to the Halloween look.

Many found this costume to be a risky choice considering the recent scandal surrounding her lipstick line launch this past June. Customers complained of lumpy lipsticks embedded with hairs or what they thought might have been shards of plastic. Others believed that she might have been selling old lipsticks that were moldy and unsafe to use.

Hill later denied those claims and apologized to her customers. She gave explanations for defective products, like cotton gloves used in production causing the hairs and high temperatures during shipping affecting consistency. The whole ordeal came to an end when she issued refunds, though she never recalled the product as many had asked and promised they were still safe to use. 

She wasn’t the only one who was inspired by the lipstick controversy. Drama YouTuber Sebastian Williams even appeared at the event wearing “Jaclyn Hill’s harry lipsticks as horns.”

Mixed Reactions 

A lot of social media users saw Hill’s costume as a funny way to own her controversy and poke fun at herself. 

Others, however, took issue with her making light of the situation. Some called it tacky, while others argued that it was disrespectful towards customers who had been let down by her lipstick launch. 

Jaclyn Hill Defends Costume

After seeing some of the backlash, Hill took to Twitter to explain that her costume wasn’t aimed at her customers. 

“This costume has NOTHING to do with my fans or customers,” she tweeted. “It has to do with ‘cancel culture’ that has become so popular. I adore my subscribers & they know that!”

She made a similar statement in another post saying, “A lot of people are missing the point. This has nothing to do with my lipsticks. That’s a whole different situation. This costume was supposed to be about the community. About Influencers & cancel culture. But people can read into it however they want obviously.” 

In an Instagram post, she wrote a more detailed caption about the intentions behind her costume, saying, “Over the last several years the internet has become more & more cruel & has developed what we now call “cancel culture” not one day has gone by in over 2 years where I have not seen ‘you’re canceled’ online.”

“I wanted to create a look showing the glam side of this industry & the ugly,” she added. “So here is it. You want me canceled? You got it baby. And I know my “haters” are going to HATE this costume. But that’s okay, I love you anyway.”

Hill also address a less serious element of the costume that critics seemed to also take issue with: spelling. One tweet went viral, slamming the beauty guru for using one “L” instead of two on her costume. 

She responded to that with a Google search of the proper way to spell the term, which notes that both are correct, but one “L” is more favored by Americans while two are more commonly used in British English.  

In response to the viral tweet, she wrote “OMGGGG! Over 100k favorites??!! Does this mean im famous!!? I love my illiterate ass.” Then in a reply to fan defending her, she wrote “I have to laugh at all these tweets about my ‘misspelling’ people will find anything!! Even when google & the dictionary proves it correct, they still gotta reach.” 

See what others are saying: (E! News) (PopBuzz) (Insider)

Continue Reading