A California Sex Addict’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Twitch Resurfaces a Legal Question We Faced Back in 2014

Are words a weapon? It’s a question that has been presented since as early as the Conrad Roy suicide case in 2014. The case drew widespread attention for its focus on teenage suicide, online romance, and the legal gray area of whether someone can be held criminally responsible for another individual’s suicide.

It’s society’s biggest lie, and one we’ve had ingrained in us since elementary school. 

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

In today’s digital age, this attempt at taking the higher ground is actually more harmful than it ever intended to be. Can an individual “cause” harm to another through a text message, a tweet, or social media post? Without physically being there?

In the case of Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy, the answer was in the affirmative. The Massachusetts court held that the text messages Michelle Carter sent to her at-the-time boyfriend, Conrad Roy, was not speech protected under the First Amendment, but behavior that fell under involuntary manslaughter. Attorneys for Carter argued that by charging Carter “based on her words alone” violated the First Amendment and the court’s decision upholding her conviction created a conflict among state supreme courts.

But how about a video streaming platform that “causes” harm to a person because of the content being “too sexy?” As our technology continues to evolve, the ways in which individuals use it changes the ways in which we apply our legal principles. 

Earlier this week, a California sex addict, Erik Estavillo sued the video streaming platform Twitch for $25 million on allegations that the site’s overabundance of “scantly clad gamers” have caused him to injure his penis through chafing each day. 

Not so sexy, eh?

I obtained a copy of the lawsuit, filed on June 15 in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, which presents a number of legal questions, that don’t seem to be too favorable for Estavillo, but still leaves the California court with a major question that seems to mirror the same question the Massachusetts court faced in Michelle Carter’s conviction—should Twitch be held liable for physical harm to its users, which a user has inflicted upon themselves?

It depends. In the case of Conrad Roy, Carter was rightfully convicted because of the level of influence and power she had over Roy, who was already susceptible to such influence, as it was her idea that she had incepted into Roy’s mind.

However, with Estavillo and Twitch, this isn’t the same logic. For one, opening the doors of liability for a platform to now be held responsible for the actions of its users based upon the type of content it so openly puts out there, is just silly. 

While the Complaint addresses Twitch’s restriction on a user having the ability to “filter streams [they’d] like to watch based on gender, male or female,” and allowing viewers to “subscribe, donate, or pay bits” to women streamers, this is still information that is visibly apparent to users—yet, plaintiff wants to eat both the cake and icing? Blasphemy.

No platform is perfect, which is quite clear from how we’ve seen Silicon Valley’s tech giants like Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, and Google handle complaints against content filtering, advertisements, hate speech, and trolling. Yet, for someone who voluntarily comes onto the platform, with existing conditions that are unbeknownst to the platform, only sets the stage for problems—now or in the future. 

It lends the question of whether a platform like Twitch should conduct background checks or mental health evaluations for its users before allowing them onto the platform, as a final step for registration. 

Estavillo, a Twitch Prime and Turbo subscriber user for years, also suffers from Depression, OCD, Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, and Crohn’s Disease, according to the Complaint. 

With COVID-19 still at large, he, like many individuals, has taken to the internet for their entertainment. But he also suffers from Sex Addiction due to his OCD, making him obsessed with sex and compulsions. 

While unfortunate, should Twitch suffer and have to tailor its content to every type of user it can expect to see on its platform? No.

But, there should be mechanisms in place as part of the registration process that help filter, no pun intended, out users who could present an issue for others on it, who may not be an ideal user for the platform. 

While there are many arguments to be made here, at this stage of litigation, it is premature to hypothesize on how Twitch intends to respond to the plaintiff’s Complaint. However, I think we can all agree that $25 million for a “penis chafing” absent a defect in a product, like the Flesh light the plaintiff seemed to “break in” quite well, is a bit silly. 

For more information on this case:

Case No.: 20-CV-367206

Erik Estavillo v. Twitch (of Amazon Inc)

Superior Court of the State of California