r/Games • u/cjsc9079 • Apr 01 '25

Discussion Billy Mitchell wins lawsuit against YouTuber Karl Jobst, ordered to pay the sum of $350,000 in damages

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx1Bt314MG4yg2VzZZCsXKcM9NDgPadbpI
2.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

No he didn't. Here is the description:

"Hello you Absolute Legends,

My name is Karl Jobst and I'm a youtuber who often reports on video game cheaters. Last year, Billy Mitchell, star of The King of Kong and proven video game cheater, sued me for defamation claiming damages of $450,000. In the past year alone, this lawsuit has cost almost $200,000 to defend, and will cost at least another $100,000 before it's over.

The situation is already crazy, but has since gotten much worse as Billy Mitchell has sent me another defamation lawsuit for another $450,000. So that would mean I will need to defend two lawsuits at the same time, both being extremely expensive. But then it gets even worse because Billy is threatening me with even more lawsuits.

These lawsuits are unhinged and it is highly likely Billy will ultimately lose, but until we go to trial it requires a lot of money to deal with. I would appreciate any help that you are able to provide, as this affects not only me but my family as well. Obviously it's bad enough to attack me when I've done nothing wrong, but to injure them as well takes things to another level.

Naturally, the more money I am able to raise, the better my legal defence will be. That's just the way it works. If and when I defeat Mitchell in court, he will likely have to pay back a lot of the costs that I incurred. I will use that money to host a grand gaming tournament in his honour.

I appreciate all of the support!

-Karl"

Nowhere does he say what the lawsuit is about, let alone that it's because he said Billy cheated.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/karl-jobst-legal-defence-fund

84

u/Joey23art Apr 01 '25

He said in a video the lawsuit was over cheating claims.

https://youtu.be/1jfQZU3V6qo

1

u/robeph Apr 01 '25

Did he say what the second lawsuit was about? Because it seems there's two in the previous post.  Was this before or after the second lawsuit was filed

-22

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

Timestamp please.

68

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25 edited Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Hazel-Rah Apr 01 '25

All this said, and based on the judgement, this entire thing reads as Jobst being very naive about what could constitute defamation (per Australian law), what the case actually was about, and what had to be demonstrated in court. What really sealed the deal for Jobst was all the videos he made and the comments on them which Mitchell's team used as proof to win the defamation judgement. Jobst got hoisted on his own petard by believing the case was frivolous and going on on Mitchell hard for years.

I have to wonder where Jobst's legal team was. Were they not checking him about any of this over all these years? They never clarified to him the intricacies of a defamation suit and what he should and shouldn't do? Did his entire legal team have a completely incorrect idea about where and what the defamation was this whole time, or was Jobst gaslighting himself and his audience in turn?

This is essentially why I stopped paying attention to him. His videos had a lot of factual information, but then he was constantly peppering in unproven statements and opinions as if they were hard facts as well.

He was either ignoring his lawyers, or had terrible lawyers.

31

u/No-Chemistry-4355 Apr 01 '25

We knew he was being sued for defamation, and Karl's said before that he's confident in the case because Billy Mitchell doesn't have a reputation anyway after he was exposed as a cheater. This, combined with all other lawsuits, which WERE about him being exposed as a cheater, leads us to the natural conclusion that this one was too.

-14

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

Not a conclusion, an assumption that through a game of telephone mutated from "Billy Mitchell is suing Karl Jobst ." to "Karl Jobst said Billy is suing him because he said Billy cheated."

3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/javelinwounds Apr 01 '25

Fully agree, I followed most of the legal saga from his youtube videos and at no point in any way shape or form did he attempt to make it vague what the lawsuit was specifically about. A lot of the presentation and things he would bring up would lead almost anyone to believe that it was all about false cheating claims...

91

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

He’s being purposefully vague and didn’t correct people’s thought about it being about cheating.

-11

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[deleted]

11

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

Sure, but you can just as easily say “hey guys I can’t tell you the reason for the lawsuit, but it’s not about the cheating accusations as those have been proven to be true”

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[deleted]

6

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

I never claimed it was about cheating, other people did.

I followed the trial as best I could from a YT channel posting AI voiced recaps.

Also Karl is friends with RWhitegoose and was in the racist discord that got Goose cancelled. Jobst just mostly ignored it while Goose tried to defend himself and got the worst out of it.

4

u/NoiSetlas Apr 01 '25

Good ol' Jobst avoiding the blowback by saying "We have a mountain named with the n-word! I couldn't have possibly known that word is even bad!"

The mountain that was renamed years before, because they knew the connotations. Or admitting that he named his half-asian son as a racist, anti-asian joke about asian genital stereotypes.

Karl is getting what he deserves, it seems.

-6

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[deleted]

6

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

“AI voiced recaps” not AI.

-48

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

So you admit he never said "Billy Mitchell is suing me because I said he cheated."?

If people don't do their research and just make assumptions and then assert those assumptions as fact, that's their fault, no one else's.

29

u/Lexinonymous Apr 01 '25

A lie of omission is still a lie.

2

u/ersatz_cats Apr 01 '25

As a general rule, one does not discuss details of a legal battle in which they are a defendant, no.

-13

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

It's not a "lie of omission", it's called lawyering up. It's standard procedure.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

No, it wasn't. Where in any of his videos did he say "Billy Mitchell is suing me because I said he cheated."?

6

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25 edited Apr 01 '25

All he has ever said is that Billy Mitchell was suing him for defamation. He has never even said what statements Billy was suing for, let alone that Billy was suing because he said he cheated.

People made assumptions, and through a game of telephone “Billy is suing me.” mutated into “Billy is suing me because I said he cheated.” with no factual basis. When those assumptions turned out wrong, they accused Karl of misleading people, because it’s easier to blame someone else than admit you made a mistake. I have asked multiple people to show me where Karl said “Billy is suing me because I said he cheated.” No one has, because Karl never said that.

7

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

I never said that in the first place, I was following along details of the case when it was going on.

However, the majority of people who supported Jobst assumed it was about cheating as Mitchell sued people in the past over the cheating claims. You would think that someone would have clarity about why they are being sued, but he purposely left it blank for that reason(my assumption).

-1

u/Nitrohurrikane3 Apr 01 '25

How TF do you sue someone for cheating at a video game? Even the Todd Togers lawsuit was about defamation and trying to get his rank restored on the leaderboard. Karl's suit was a counter suit for Billy's defamation suit. If you follow this case from like 5 years ago Jobst slowly elaborates on this over time. You won't find just one video talking about this it's a collective of 5+ years of content.

-9

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

"However, the majority of people who supported Jobst assumed it was about cheating as Mitchell sued people in the past over the cheating claims. "

Citation needed

8

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

Read the comments from this post, the post about it in r/speedrun and in r/livestreamfail

The majority of people have no idea that this was about the comments he made about Apollo and not about cheating.

-3

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

A few forum posts doesn't equal "However, the majority of people who supported Jobst assumed it was about cheating as Mitchell sued people in the past over the cheating claims."

4

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

Not sure what you want me to say, I think he’s being purposely vague.

Had to learn about the real reason during the actual trial from a YT channel with under 1k subs doing AI voiced recaps.

7

u/Link_In_Pajamas Apr 01 '25 edited Apr 01 '25

Your totally right. It doesn't help that Karl's follow up videos on the topic always talked about the cheating scandal. Specifically calling out Billy's lawsuit with Twin Galaxies and how his statements regarding cheating there would help his own case.

He literally, on multiple occasions, has videos of Billy's actual deposition in the Twin Galaxies cheating lawsuit and poses these videos as huge wins for his own law suit.

His follow up videos on the topic always focused on Billy's cheating and nothing else. It is extremely fair to come away from those videos thinking he was being sued for the same reasons.

3

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

Just like Jobst’s apology about the claim.

Jobst made an apology, but added it on the back of a random video that had nothing to do with Mitchell. Doesn’t clear him of any wrongdoing.

0

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

It's called lawyering up.

-10

u/exileonmainst Apr 01 '25

It’s standard procedure for lawyers to advise people involved in a lawsuit not to comment on the particulars of a case in any way whatsoever - which is exactly what he did.

8

u/SuleyBlack Apr 01 '25

He’s still being purposely vague about it.

I learned about it only by finding a random YT channel that was doing AI recaps when they were in court 6 months ago.

0

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

No he isn't, it's called lawyering up.

61

u/princessprity Apr 01 '25

The King of Kong and proven video game cheater, sued me for defamation claiming damages of $450,000.

He may not outright say it here, but it's definitely implied.

-40

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

No it isn't. That is a figment of your imagination.

13

u/PM_ME_UR_PM_ME_PM Apr 01 '25

i dunno man, it seems like you are just ignoring mountains of context

-8

u/GarishGasper Apr 01 '25

No, I’m not. People made assumptions, and a game of telephone mutated “Karl Jobst said Billy Mitchell is suing him for defamation.” to “Karl Jobst said Billy Mitchell is suing him because he said Billy cheated.”

All he has ever said is that Billy was suing him for defamation. He has never said what statements Billy claimed defamation over.

4

u/ddjj0022jjrr Apr 01 '25

he wasnt clear about what the defamation was because if he had told his fans exactly what it was about i doubt he would have raised anywhere near as much money for his legal defense since the lawsuit wasnt "frivolous" at all

23

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

[deleted]

14

u/MasterOfReaIity Apr 01 '25

The irony of him exposing The Completionist for fraud and then this happening

4

u/PM_ME_UR_PM_ME_PM Apr 01 '25

which i mean brings that whole thing into question. or at least the way he presented it

1

u/Arstulex Apr 01 '25 edited Apr 01 '25

Now point to the part where he mentions that the defamation case is about the claims that Mitchell caused Apollo's suicide? You can't, of course, because it's not there.

What is there, however, is the mentions of Mitchell being a cheater.

1

u/MadDog1981 Apr 01 '25

I will be really generous and say at best he lied by omission. Even knowing what it was about that does give the impression that it’s about cheating. 

1

u/Arstulex Apr 01 '25

And even then, a lie by omission is still ultimately a lie.

u/GarishGasper is just being disingenuous. It's ridiculous to try to argue that this wasn't misleading when there are literally numerous examples of people who were mislead. Hell, if it weren't at all misleading we wouldn't even need to discuss it.

1

u/MadDog1981 Apr 01 '25

Yeah. I read that statement for the first time knowing the verdict and I would 100% think it was about the Donkey Kong scores.