TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459 - Ethan Klein Suing three women and 10 redditors for Copyright Infringement.

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Ian decided to go ahead and apologize.
What he also does is admit to several things:
1) He displayed the message intentionally to hurt Ethan
2) He picked this specific message because of its impact
3) He is mad at Ethan and that is why he did it
4) He knew that this would severely hurt Ethan and Hila but it is justified because (((Jew bad)))
5) He did this because Ethan sued Denims, Frogan and Kaceytron

Bold strategy.
Maybe Ethan is merciful.

EDIT: Apparently he is, a comment on the video from the verified h3h3 account says Ethan will drop the lawsuit.
Who would have though avoiding live ruination could be this simple. Frogan in shambles.

💥 Trainwreck Opublikuj w wątku „Anisa Riyadh Jomha / @anisajomha & iDubbbz / Ian Kane Jomha / Ian Kane Washburn / "Anisa's husband" / Scorched Legume / "Poo-Pants Swastika Boy""

15 Cze 2026

The apology dropped

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WeItBReyQRg
Apologizing to Ethan [WeItBReyQRg].mp4

• Gambina Enthusiast

Reakcje: x 428 x 31 x 8 x 12 x 9 x 5 x 1 x 1 x 1

 

[MrMM]

Ian decided to go ahead and apologize.

Honestly, it's a good video. Ian looks more human here than I've seen in a while. He certainly still reserves some things to himself on justification, but the totality is a real-ass apology.

Also, this is absolutely not a hostage-like pre-written settlement statement. I think H3 dropping the lawsuit here is more of a "I get it man, okay, let's move on" thing than a prenegotiated endeavor.

Ian says "at the end of the day whatever happens with the lawsuit is what it is". So I think he really is just coming out here and trying to take the high ground. And I gotta hand it to him over that. Good on ya Ian.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Honestly, it's a good video. Ian looks more human here than I've seen in a while. He certainly still reserves some things to himself on justification, but the totality is a real-ass apology.

Also, this is absolutely not a hostage-like pre-written settlement statement. I think H3 dropping the lawsuit here is more of a "I get it man, okay, let's move on" thing than a prenegotiated endeavor.

Ian says "at the end of the day whatever happens with the lawsuit is what it is". So I think he really is just coming out here and trying to take the high ground. And I gotta hand it to him over that. Good on ya Ian.

He is lucky that Ethan is straight up with his intentions.
He wanted the apology, and he wants people to stop harassing his family.

At the end of the day I do not think there is anything for Ethan to take from them, any he was not in it for the money anyway.

 

[Terrifik]

Opublikuj w wątku „TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459"

15 Cze 2026

Honestly, it's a good video. Ian looks more human here than I've seen in a while. He certainly still reserves some things to himself on justification, but the totality is a real-ass apology.

Also, this is absolutely not a hostage-like pre-written settlement statement. I think H3 dropping the lawsuit here is more of a "I get it man, okay, let's move on" thing than a prenegotiated endeavor.

Ian says "at the end of the day whatever happens with the lawsuit is what it is". So I think he really is just coming out here and trying to take the high ground. And I gotta hand it to him...

• Gobermental Supervisor

Reakcje: x 4 x 2 x 1

Like said story over for dubs lawsuit back to women

https://x.com/i/status/2066574483104944170

https://x.com/i/status/2066580124208595411

 

[MrMM]

So today marks two weeks since the court in the Denims case issued its tentative ruling. The court and parties had their hearing two fridays ago.



The current matter is under submission as of June 5th. And I think I'm a tad bit surprised we haven't seen the Judge issue a final ruling yet. I assumed it would happen within a week or two, but with tomorrow being a federal holiday (Juneteenth, even in a Trump administration), that looks increasingly unlikely.

The primary reason I can think of for a delay is that Rom actually raised a few points at the hearing that the court felt it would need time to address to bolster the Court's ruling for an appeal. There *is* the much more remote chance that the judge is reconsidering the ruling entirely, but I think that is highly unlikely, as it would be common for a court to request additional briefing from the parties on a narrow issue if the judge was second guessing himself -- both to buy time and to get the parties to clearly state their positions.

But who knows. This is tea leaf reading at its finest. Could just as easily be the judge decided to go watch the Knicks or something and lost track of this case. However I will say the longer we wait the more I think Rom may have done something moderately convincing at the hearing/arguments.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

So today marks two weeks since the court in the Denims case issued its tentative ruling. The court and parties had their hearing two fridays ago.

I even checked the court website to see if the judge hat put something else out on the case, but there has been nothing after Rom requested the transcripts and notified the court of the Doe appeal of the subpoena.

I was fully prepared for the judge to just file his opinion and ruling shortly after the hearing.

 

[MrMM]

I even checked the court website to see if the judge hat put something else out on the case, but there has been nothing after Rom requested the transcripts and notified the court of the Doe appeal of the subpoena.

I was fully prepared for the judge to just file his opinion and ruling shortly after the hearing.

My absolute best guess is the Denims judge is taking the time to address the Mods/Does-related failed subpoena quash.

He agreed to take judicial notice of it (in a footnote) but (i think?) did not otherwise engage with it.

He is probably trying to dispose of it, even though the Mods have not moved (i think?) in the Denims case (nor Frogan case or Kaceytron case for that matter) for dismissal.

There's the weird procedural and operational reality that the court seems to want to rule in Denims favor on Denims's motion, which wouldn't necessarily extinguish Ethans claims against the mods automatically (the mods haven't moved to dismiss the claims against them) while at the same time another court granted the subpoena for the mods info (currently being appealed) based on Ethans claims against the mods via the underlying Denims case.

It is all messy. My best guess is this judge wants to try to clean it up. And will *hereby rule under the all writs act* (the judicial admin code to do whatever they want) ex parte extinguish Ethan's claims against the Mods (in the Denims case) and vacate the justification for the Mods subpoena that is the basis for the appeal/etc.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I stumbled over this by accident. Sadly it is an hour long, and even in this format Frogan is insufferable, but I found it interesting to see a video about her from a less biased perspective.
tl;dr: Ethan is not getting ANY money out of this bitch. (I really do not get what her life plan is, find a job maybe?)

 

[anliteralidiot]

I stumbled over this by accident. Sadly it is an hour long, and even in this format Frogan is insufferable, but I found it interesting to see a video about her from a less biased perspective.
tl;dr: Ethan is not getting ANY money out of this bitch. (I really do not get what her life plan is, find a job maybe?)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=i1U0oHKMzfA

All I really got out of it is that she's boring as fuck, really stupid for trying to be a streamer as a career, and her mom is fuckin mean. Like, yeah her mom was telling her to stop streaming, and that's good, but saying the hair dye made frogan look ugly was just mean.

I hope Ethan makes her live with her parents.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

but saying the hair dye made frogan look ugly was just mean

If you had this thing brainwashed by the Californian education system as your daughter you would also tell her that.
Like, I fully expect there to be a long history of Frogan being a dumb cunt, living large on her parent's money, being forced to get any kind of degree, only to not even work in the field.

Mean or not, as a parent financing her fat lifestyle I'd say she has every right to say whatever the fuck she wants to the fat blob.

And yes, Frogan appears to be very boring. (and disgusting)

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

Like, yeah her mom was telling her to stop streaming, and that's good, but saying the hair dye made frogan look ugly was just mean.

youre right, its not her hair dye, its her face and personality.

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

The judge seems to be on vacation (??) but it is still odd that we don't see this case in the tentative ruling tab anymore (it used to be there, with other, older rulings too)
Any federal circuit nerd knows what this means?

 

[MrMM]

Any federal circuit nerd knows what this means?

I wouldnt read too much into it. Probably just a clerk clearing out old entries. It's not some formal system as far as I am aware.

I am surprised a final (non-tentative) ruling still has not been entered. But it could be due to a vacation, which you note.

 

[WaveBreak]

Jordan Peterson is a flawed man, but he clocked the fuck out of Ethan when he rejected sanity to adopt leftist craziness. I do wonder if post-oct 7 Ethan ever reflects on this.

that was jordan before he gained braindamage in russia. ethan has actually commented on this tweet after the whole shit show with hasan began. he said something like this "yeah im aware of jordans comments. people saying its prophetic. its not. I don't think he has any point with that tweet. its just mumbo jumbo *proceeds to make kermit the frog noises*"

 

[A.P. Hill]

One unintentionally hilarious outcome of this ruling is that if the judge set the precedent that just mumbling "yeah um okay" while watching a video is transformative content, even if you explicitly said you're doing it to deprive the maker of revenue- Hardin could easily spring this case on No Dong Fong. If this is not copyright infringement, there's no way that editing a photo into a meme is.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Hardin could easily spring this case on No Dong Fong. If this is not copyright infringement, there's no way that editing a photo into a meme is.

That still doesn't stop DMCA being used as a weapon to subpoena identities and harass people.

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

One unintentionally hilarious outcome of this ruling is that if the judge set the precedent that just mumbling "yeah um okay" while watching a video is transformative content, even if you explicitly said you're doing it to deprive the maker of revenue- Hardin could easily spring this case on No Dong Fong. If this is not copyright infringement, there's no way that editing a photo into a meme is.

Not really. The ruling explains that the reaction was substantive. It also explicitly says that the nature of the reaction was a factor, meaning that it wasn't just 'pauses for the sake of pauses' or reactions that didn't add to the content. So, if you just said "so, how was your weekend guys" or similar small talk that isn't related to the content of the video, that is much less likely to qualify for fair use. It's also why Denim's reaction was the strongest legally speaking, it wasn't some xQc type watch party.

 

[MrMM]

So, if you just said "so, how was your weekend guys" or similar small talk that isn't related to the content of the video, that is much less likely to qualify for fair use.

To be clear, Denims very obviously did not transform the content and none of us who tried this shit with Disney content would ever be granted the grace of this judge who just wants to clear his docket.

She usually just pauses the video briefly every 30ish seconds to make a quick quip -- sometimes extended when she gets a donation.

Some egregious shit I made it through
Essentially two minutes of her just on her phone
Chair stream btw
Another minute on her phone

Fuck jesus why did i watch any of her stream for this. It's mostly her giving bambi-eyes every time Hasan speaks, and once Hasan makes a point she pauses and fellates Hasan virtually. Her commentary is literally the dumbest fucking shit I have ever heard. I understand we shouldn't imprison idiots by default, but god Denims really presses me. I cannot stand retards to this degree.

You can usually click through any part of this video and she isn't speaking. It's just a rebroadcast of his content. Which she expressly acknowledges.

This part of the complaint should be dispositive. But the judge is being an idiot:

 

[SoyBoyCaliphate]

To be clear, Denims very obviously did not transform the content and none of us who tried this shit with Disney content would ever be granted the grace of this judge who just wants to clear his docket.

She usually just pauses the video briefly every 30ish seconds to make a quick quip -- sometimes extended when she gets a donation.

Some egregious shit I made it through
Essentially two minutes of her just on her phone
Chair stream btw
Another minute on her phone

Fuck jesus why did i watch any of her stream for this. It's mostly her giving bambi-eyes every time Hasan speaks, and once Hasan makes a point she pauses and fellates Hasan virtually. Her commentary is literally the dumbest fucking shit I have ever heard. I understand we shouldn't imprison idiots by default, but god Denims really presses me. I cannot stand retards to this degree.

You can usually click through any part of this video and she isn't speaking. It's just a rebroadcast of his content. Which she expressly acknowledges.

This part of the complaint should be dispositive. But the judge is being an idiot:

Wyświetl załącznik 9193121

Again, there is a big difference between creative content and "factual" content. Also outline in the ruling. The fact that ethan added content that is related to her, and mentions her explicitly makes it quite a bit different too. For factual content, you do need the full context to be able to respond effectively. Wouldn't be the case with a disney movie. Again, even bringing up that example is a sure sign of not understanding the ruling.

Also, that's a nice quote. Did you see the Denims graph that her side presented in their evidence? It's quite conclusive. 70% of the nuke might sound like a lot, until you realize that's a small part of the total reaction time. And whats the problem with waiting for 30secs of playtime or more before reacting? Thats just an arbitrary standard that his lawyer came up with. What frequency would be better to respond to a an argument?


Maybe the judge did see that evidence, but knows more about the law and doesn't come into this case with the biais that you have. Id this was a trial ruling sure, it can be murky. But the fact that this was a MJOTP should be a big, big hint that you are either missing something or just wrong.

Spoiler: watched the stream

I have never watched denims, but watched this stream and while sure it is pure slop, it has far more added material than 99% of reactions, and ethan literally made allegations about her in it.
Ethan himself said that doubling the runtime is usually a good sign of a "properly transformative" reaction video. Even with the empty pauses he brings up, this is clearing that standard.

 

[MrMM]

But the fact that this was a MJOTP should be a big, big hint that you are either missing something or just wrong.

First of all, judges are often stupid and lazy. My old judge let me do essentially whatever I wanted (to be clear, which meant putting his signature on words I wrote), especially if he had a vacation coming up. His priorities were clearing his docket and trying to get parties to settle so he wouldn't have to make actual rulings that could be appealed. And, in particular for me, Judge Phyllis Hamilton's lazy rulings in NDCA are one of the reasons I eventually gave up on litigation. I lost faith in the process because of judicial stupidity.

Second of all, the fact that the judge is ruling on this on the pleadings is one of the biggest reasons why he might be overturned on appeal. Ethan should be surviving a 12(b)(6)/12(c) standard, and I have previously commented on this point:

There is a world where the Judge in Denims's case doesnt adopt the tentative order, and lets this proceed to discovery and a motion for summary judgement (but has since signaled where he thinks this will ultimately fall) -- which is probably more appropriate here than dismissing it on the pleadings, but who knows

It is kind of crazy to me that the judge is going to jump the gun in this way. It is a lot easier for him if he doesn't resolve this as a 12(c), so that he can, for example, look to the graph Denims made of her content in her briefing. But that would technically require going to summary judgment.

----

I have never watched denims, but watched this stream and while sure it is pure slop, it has far more added material than 99% of reactions

Yeah I mean i certainly agree with this. Going back to my August 2025 posts in this thread:

There's a world where a judge could rule Kaceytron loses, because smoking and sitting silently isn't fair use, and a judge rules Denims wins, because she spent 5 hours and 6 minutes on the 1 hour and 42 minute content nuke "transforming" it to be compliant with fair use.

But the outcome here is pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't be so frustrated here if this type of ruling had precedential value. I am very much anti-copyright (I'm a patent guy, and the way we treat copyright compared to patents is crazy), and would love to see its current form unraveled. But it won't. No court would ever allow this for infringement of copyright holders by real companies (I understand you want to point to the second factor of four in the fair use analysis to call this stuff "factual" but that's absolutely a stretch for slop creative content, of which both Ethan and Denims are engaging).

But the judge making this ruling on the pleadings means there's no world where we get a precedential ninth circuit affirmance, because no circuit judges will stick their necks out to defend this decision, so this will never mean anything.