In a pair of newly filed lawsuits, YouTuber Ethan Klein and his company, Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI), have taken legal action against streamers Kacey Caviness (known online as Kaceytron) and Alexandra Saber (known as Denims) for alleged copyright infringement. The cases, filed in the Western District of Missouri and the Central District of California respectively, center around the same controversy: the alleged unauthorized, full-length streaming of TEI’s original video, Content Nuke: Hasan Piker, referred to in the complaints as “The Nuke.”

Beyond the specific facts of these two cases lies a much broader issue. What exactly constitutes fair use in the age of reaction content? As the streaming ecosystem continues to blur the lines between commentary, entertainment, and republishing, these lawsuits could be a turning point in how courts evaluate live-streamed content under U.S. copyright law.

Ethan Klein is no stranger to copyright law. In 2017, he and his wife Hila Klein won a landmark victory in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, No. 16-CV-3081 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017) where a federal judge held that their YouTube reaction video was protected under the fair use doctrine. Upon reviewing the reaction video, the Court applied the four-factor fair use analysis.

For the first factor, which considers the purpose and character of the use, the court found it weighed strongly in the Kleins’ favor. The video was characterized as a clear example of criticism and comment.

The second factor, which looks at the nature of the copyrighted work, favored the Plaintiff because the original material was entirely scripted and fictional.

Regarding the third factor, which examines the amount and substantiality of the portion used, the court found it to be neutral. Although the Kleins copied a significant portion of the Plaintiff’s work, the court determined that this use was necessary and reasonable to achieve the transformative goal of critical commentary. Using clips from the original was considered appropriate under the circumstances.

For the fourth factor, which assesses the effect of the use on the potential market, the court found it favored the Kleins. Their video did not serve as a substitute for the original. Instead, it transformed the Plaintiff’s content into material for detailed and often mocking commentary.

That decision became one of the first high-profile rulings to affirm that reaction content can be lawful if it sufficiently transforms the original material. However, Ethan Klein now finds himself in a new role, not as the defendant, but as the plaintiff. Through TEI, Klein alleges that

Kaceytron and Denims crossed a legal line by streaming “The Nuke” in its entirety, or nearly so, with little added commentary or critique.

In the Missouri case against Kaceytron, TEI alleges that the defendant streamed the entire Content Nuke video shortly after its release, turning it into what the complaint describes as a “group viewing session.” See TED Entertainment, Inc. v. Caviness, 4:25-cv-00459-LMC, Doc. 1 (W. MI. June 19, 2025). The lawsuit emphasizes the lack of meaningful commentary and accuses Kaceytron of being visibly intoxicated during the stream, allegedly smoking cannabis and offering only minimal interjections that TEI argues were not transformative.

Citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 580 (1994) and the recent Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 541 (2023), the complaint contends that Kaceytron’s use fails to meet the standards of transformative fair use because it adds no new insight or expression. Instead, TEI claims the stream served as a commercial substitute for the original work, undermining its market value and depriving TEI of viewership and revenue.

The California case against Denims is similar in substance, but with key differences. Not only is Denims accused of streaming The Nuke, but also another TEI production titled Countdown to Doomsday. According to the complaint, Denims openly encouraged viewers to watch her stream specifically to avoid giving views to Klein’s YouTube channel. The complaint quotes her as reading a message in her chat, “We’re relying on you to stay live so we don’t have to give the Nuke views.” TED Entertainment, Inc. v. Saber, Case No.: 2:25-cv-5564, Doc 1, ¶ 70 (C.D. CA. June 19, 2025). Then, Denims allegedly states that “Yeah, I’m going to. I’m going to stream it since he confirmed it’s coming out today. We’re going to stream it.” Id.

What makes this case particularly interesting is how TEI uses Denims’ own past statements against her. Allegedly, in a 2025 debate, Denims described Twitch streamers as “curators” who provide communal experiences for viewers, essentially arguing that their presence, even without deep commentary, justifies rebroadcasting copyrighted work. Id., at 20(c)(iii). TEI portrays this philosophy as a knowing and willful violation of copyright law, framing Denims’ approach as not just legally dubious but ideologically opposed to the fair use doctrine itself.

Both lawsuits also name as defendants the anonymous moderators of the “H3Snark” subreddit, accusing them of contributory infringement. The complaints allege that the subreddit was used to coordinate and promote the reaction streams, specifically as a way for viewers to avoid giving views or revenue to Klein’s channel. Saber, at ¶ 44; Caviness, at ¶ 42.

TEI claims that this subreddit served as a hub for “fallen fans” who had turned against the Kleins, amplifying infringing streams and helping to divert traffic from the original videos. Saber, at ¶ 23; Caviness, at ¶ 21.

Although there has not yet been an lawsuit similar to this one, there have been disputes prior regarding the actions of a subreddit. For example, OpenAi in May of 2024 hit the r/ChatGPT subreddit with a copyright claim for using their logo.

Whether courts will entertain this claim, or require more concrete evidence of coordination, remains to be seen, but it raises new legal questions about the liability of online community moderators for content shared by others.

One of the most notable aspects of these cases is that they are nearly factually identical but filed in two different federal jurisdictions. The Kaceytron case will be heard in the Eighth Circuit, and the Denims case in the Ninth. This is significant because, while the core standards for fair use are consistent nationwide, different circuits have historically emphasized different elements such as market harm, commerciality, or transformative purpose, with varying degrees of weight.

This means that two courts could, in theory, reach different outcomes even with similar facts. That would further complicate the legal landscape for streamers who operate across multiple platforms and jurisdictions. If one court upholds fair use and the other does not, it could trigger a broader circuit split that might eventually require review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The central question that will resonate with content creators is this: when does a reaction cross the line from commentary into infringement?

Reaction content is everywhere, on Twitch, YouTube, TikTok, and beyond. While viewers may love the shared experience, copyright law remains rooted in the idea that creators should retain control over how their work is used and monetized.

What Klein is arguing through these lawsuits is that simply watching someone else’s video, without meaningful transformation, is not fair use. It is freeloading. And if courts agree, the decision could change how creators large and small engage with copyrighted material.

Both Kaceytron and Denims have yet to file formal responses, but the cases are expected to attract widespread attention from digital rights organizations, streamers, copyright lawyers, and

tech platforms. For Ethan Klein, it is a chance to draw a clearer legal boundary around what he once helped define. For streamers, it is a warning and a signal that the age of reaction without reflection may soon face more legal resistance.

Until the courts rule, the rest of the content creation world will be watching.

For Content Creators who need assistance with their intellectual property, feel free to reach out to Twisdale Law, PC for assistance.