Samuel Tunick flew home from vacation with a Google Pixel running GrapheneOS, and the FBI was already waiting for him at the Atlanta airport. When border officers demanded his password and typed it in, the screen flashed, the phone restarted, and everything on it was gone.

That is a duress password: a code that does not unlock your phone, it erases it. Nearly eleven months later, on November 13, 2025, a Georgia grand jury returned a one-count sealed indictment — not for terrorism, child exploitation, or the protest movement the government had actually been investigating. Tunick was charged with destroying evidence under 18 U.S.C. Section 2232.

Tunick, an American citizen associated with the Cop City protest movement, landed at Hartsfield-Jackson on January 24, 2025, returning from the Dominican Republic. An FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force officer and a special agent had coordinated with CBP ahead of time. The officers opened by saying they were "looking for people who are pedophiles." They kept questioning Tunick after he repeatedly asked for a lawyer, never read him his Miranda rights, and told him "we have search authority, we don't need a warrant." He eventually gave up both passwords. The one for the Pixel destroyed its data.

LegalEagle breaks down the full stack of legal questions that follow: the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment, and why Riley v. California made phones different; the circuit split that leaves Tunick in the worst courtroom for it, where the 11th Circuit (Vergara, Touset) requires no individualized suspicion at all, the 9th requires reasonable suspicion, and the 4th requires individualized suspicion plus a nexus between the suspected offense and the purposes of the border-search exception; the Fifth Amendment line between compelled biometrics and a memorized passcode; and Section 2232 itself, which turns on whether the "property" was the phone or the data that vanished with the code.

Plus: the two-page indictment that misspells the country as "Untied States" and names the wrong agency entirely.

A case about the password you are allowed to keep in your head, and what happens when the government enters it anyway.

CHAPTERS

(00:00) A password that erases your phone

(01:12) The FBI is waiting at the airport

(02:09) No lawyer, no Miranda warning

(02:49) The duress password wipes the phone

(03:40) Indicted for destroying evidence

(04:13) The border search exception

(04:52) The 11th Circuit: no suspicion

(06:36) What border searches are for

(09:12) Whren and the pretext problem

(09:52) CBP policy vs. the Constitution

(11:04) The Fifth Amendment and passwords

(12:56) What Tunick says happened

(13:47) Miranda at the border

(14:46) A protected act, a new crime?

(15:46) The indictment, typos and all

(16:22) What Section 2232 requires

(17:48) The phone or the data?

(18:53) What was the prohibited act?

(20:17) Can Tunick still win?

(20:54) Finding the right lawyer

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

In August of 2019, employees of a $50 billion company began terrorizing a middle-aged couple in Natick, Massachusetts: live cockroaches in the mail, a bloody pig mask, a funeral wreath, strangers knocking at all hours after fake Craigslist ads. David and Ina Steiner ran EcommerceBytes, a small trade blog for online sellers. Their tormentor was eBay.
This week, the story that began with "we are going to crush this lady" finally got a price tag. eBay agreed to pay the Steiners $46 million, with former CEO Devin Wenig adding $2 million more, former SVP Wendy Jones $500,000, and former communications chief Steve Wymer $50,000. Add $7 million in charitable contributions, a million of it made in Ina Steiner's name to a First Amendment charity.
How does a Fortune 500 company end up running an interstate harassment campaign against two bloggers? We walk through the whole arc: the activist hedge fund breathing down eBay's neck, the CEO enraged by a story about his $18 million pay package, and Jim Baugh, the security chief who made staff watch Meet the Fockers "circle of trust" clips, left a knife stabbed in an office chair, and took the C-suite's "whatever it takes" literally. His team's plan ran from threatening messages and mailed spiders to a "white knight" rescue scheme, executed so badly that the crowbar for the break-in went on the company credit card.
Then the law. The 15 federal counts against Baugh and David Harville: conspiracy, interstate stalking, stalking through facilities of interstate commerce, witness tampering, destruction of evidence. The guilty pleas, Baugh's 57 months, and the executives who were never charged at all. Wenig left with a $57 million severance package his own board never clawed back.
And finally the civil case that just ended. The Steiners sued eBay, Wenig, Wymer, Jones and Baugh: intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, defamation, trespass, and a ratification theory arguing that failing to discipline the conduct blessed it. Plus the strangest subplot: Baugh's letter of contrition that turned out to contain classified information, the Justice Department's protective order, and the deal that ended everything. The man who ran the operation waived the Fifth to testify against his old bosses, right up until eBay decided it would rather pay than face a jury.
eBay's corporate motto, for the record, is still "People are basically good."
CHAPTERS
(00:00) Cockroaches, a pig mask, a war
(00:57) The Steiners and their blog
(01:58) eBay's C-suite under pressure
(02:48) Jim Baugh, corporate maniac
(04:32) The article that set them off
(07:05) The harassment plan, in buckets
(09:40) Very bad at crime
(10:56) The 15 federal counts
(11:58) Sentences, and who skated
(12:55) The Steiners' civil suit
(14:41) Classified letters, Fifth Amendment
(16:39) Baugh flips
(17:11) The $46 million settlement
(17:43) Where they all landed
(19:10) EagleTeam: need a lawyer?
Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteamLEGAL-ISH

DISCLAIMER

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Trump ordered the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool coated in American Flag Blue for the nation's 250th birthday. The paint peeled within a week, and a 67-year-old Olympic canoeist ended up facing ten years in prison for putting his hand in the water.

The $14.7 million job never went to the Park Service or an engineering firm. It started with the manager of Trump's Bedminster golf club shopping a Las Vegas concrete trade show and ended with a Virginia contractor that had never held a federal contract. The July 4th deadline was the excuse to skip the environmental reviews and the competitive bidding. Seven million dollars came out of national park entrance fees.

Then the coating peeled, and the administration needed a villain. Trump described a 350-foot slit cut by vandals with box cutters. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed him up on television. And US Attorney Jeanine Pirro indicted David Hearn, who touched a floating chunk of loose epoxy and was handcuffed on the spot.

Devin breaks down why that case was doomed the day it was filed. DC Code 22-303 only becomes a felony at $1,000 in damage, and that figure is an element the government has to prove. Its own witness, a Park Service official identified in filings only as MR, told the grand jury the pool was already leaking, the expansion joints were past their service life, and the liner already had a rip. Asked whether the repairs would have been needed anyway, he said yes. Then he was excused at 11:36 that morning, brought back 21 minutes later, and testified that Hearn's damage was definitely over $1,000. The defense only found out because the government later produced a transcript with two extra pages the court reporter had supposedly left off.

Add the drained pool the defense wanted tested, a memo showing the liner was already peeling where Hearn touched it, and a Park Service engineer who admitted cutting loose material with a knife himself. Pirro moved to dismiss and blamed the Interior Department. Judge Todd Edelman granted it but has not ruled on whether it is with prejudice, which decides whether the case is over or can come back.

(00:00) The blue reflecting pool disaster
(01:06) Trump blames vandals with knives
(02:02) How the pool guys got the job
(03:03) No-bid contracts, rushed job
(04:22) Pirro indicts an Olympic canoeist
(04:52) What David Hearn actually did
(05:42) DC Code 22-303 and the $1,000 line
(06:48) Pirro and Burgum sell vandalism
(07:33) The spoliation motion
(08:31) Grand jury minutes: witness MR
(09:35) The 21-minute testimony flip
(11:12) Pirro's track record
(12:15) Pirro moves to dismiss
(13:24) The memo that sank the case
(14:21) The vet who reached in the water
(15:04) Hearn demands prejudice
(15:53) The knife guy was federal
(16:38) The grand jury transcript dare
(17:20) Edelman punts to September
(18:35) Pirro vs. Burgum at the White House
(19:59) The Broadview 6 warning
(21:25) EagleTeam: find the right lawyer

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Buc-ee's, the Texas travel-stop giant with the grinning beaver logo, has spent a decade suing other businesses over cartoon animal mascots: an alligator, a duck, a moose, even a squirrel on novelty underwear. Then John Oliver spent a Last Week Tonight segment cataloging that litigation record, rolled out his own Buck-off merch featuring a suspiciously familiar rodent in a yellow circle, and dared Buc-ee's to sue.

Could Buc-ee's actually win? Devin breaks down the real legal claims behind the beaver's lawsuits — mostly not copyright, but trademark confusion, trade dress, and the nuclear option: trademark dilution. He walks through the Lapp factors from Interpace v. Lapp, the 1983 case that lets a convenience store sue a dog park; the Choke Canyon verdict, where a Houston jury decided a cartoon alligator could be confused with a cartoon beaver despite a survey showing more than 99% of people weren't confused; and Buc-ee's newest targets, including Mickey's, an Ohio chain that was pumping gas decades before Buc-ee's opened its first store in the state, and Beavers Mini Mart in Beavercreek, Ohio, where the whole town answered by going beaver-branded in solidarity.

Then the main event: parody law. The Rogers test from Rogers v. Grimaldi, the Barbie Girl case where a federal judge told Mattel and MCA to chill, and Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products, the Bad Spaniels ruling in which the Supreme Court held that a parody used to brand your own product gets no First Amendment shortcut. That's exactly what Buck-off tumblers and underwear are — so John Oliver may have handed Buc-ee's a stronger case than he thinks, with one big exception that could save him.

Trademark law does pressure companies to police their marks, and there's a right way to do it (see Patagonia's $1 lawsuit). But there's also the court of public opinion, where the Streisand Effect remains undefeated.

(00:00) Buc-ee's vs. John Oliver
(00:45) The Buck-off merch challenge
(01:42) What Buc-ee's actually sues over
(02:24) Trademark confusion & the Lanham Act
(02:58) The Lapp factors
(04:41) Frio Beaver: the easy case
(05:13) Choke Canyon: juries can be weird
(05:56) Trade dress: the Chicks lawsuit
(06:50) Dilution: the nuclear option
(08:36) Duckies Drive-Thru lawsuit
(10:03) Nut Huggers and Mickey's
(11:14) Running the factors on Mickey's
(13:24) Why Oliver picked this fight
(14:33) Parody and the Rogers test
(15:38) Mattel v. MCA: Barbie Girl
(16:45) Jack Daniel's v. Bad Spaniels
(18:42) Where that leaves Buck-off
(20:02) Policing marks: Patagonia's way
(21:36) Beavercreek goes full beaver
(22:20) EagleTeam: find the right lawyer

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Afroman beat seven Ohio deputies in the most quotable free speech trial in years. Now he's the one filing the lawsuit — and it may be the riskiest move of the saga.

In August 2022, deputies from the Adams County Sheriff's Office raided the home of Joseph "Afroman" Foreman on a warrant alleging drug trafficking and kidnapping, based on an informant's story about a torture dungeon in a basement the house doesn't have. They found nothing, charged him with nothing, broke his door and gate, cut his cameras — and walked past his mother's lemon pound cake on the way through. Afroman turned the surviving footage into songs, an album, and merch, gave one deputy the nickname Officer Poundcake, and in 2023 seven of them sued him for defamation, asking roughly $3.9 million. In March 2026, a jury sided with Afroman on every count. But because Ohio's anti-SLAPP law arrived 22 months too late to apply, winning still cost him over $20,000 in attorney's fees.

So on July 27, 2026, Afroman filed his own eight-page lawsuit in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas against exactly one man: former deputy Brian K. Newland, the officer who counted the roughly $5,000 in cash seized during the raid, about $400 of which allegedly never came back. Devin walks through why Newland, of all seven, is the sole defendant, then takes the complaint apart count by count: the malicious prosecution claim that runs headlong into Ohio's unusual "seizure" requirement, the abuse of process count that repackages count one, the emotional distress claim that invites the exact cross-examination Afroman used to win the first trial, and a tortious interference claim with no named venues, plus the new song calling Newland a pedophile that could hand the ex-deputy a defamation case of his own. Sometimes the point of a lawsuit isn't winning. Sometimes it's discovery, a deposition, and a door nobody ever fixed.

(00:00) Afroman sues back

(00:48) The 2022 raid

(02:11) Poundcake songs and a $3.9M suit

(03:02) The trial Afroman won

(03:48) No anti-SLAPP, a $20K bill

(04:27) The new lawsuit: why Newland?

(07:44) What Afroman is suing for

(08:57) Count 1's seizure problem

(12:35) Count 2: abuse of process

(14:21) Count 3: emotional distress

(16:23) Count 4: tortious interference

(18:22) The new song problem

(19:41) What this suit is really about

(20:23) When you need a lawyer

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

The New York Times reported exactly what the Air Force gave up to get Trump's Qatari gift jet flying by July 4th. Within a day, FBI agents were at three reporters' front doors with grand jury subpoenas.

We break down one of the most brazen attacks on press freedom, and the federal judge who shut it down. It starts with a $400 million Boeing 747 from the Qatari royal family: a plane Trump keeps when he leaves office in 2029, possibly parked in the lobby of a Trump hotel in downtown Miami. To get the "palace in the sky" mission-ready for the nation's 250th anniversary flyover, defense contractor L3Harris put 400 workers on round-the-clock shifts, and the government traded away security features that are supposed to make Air Force One a flying nuclear bunker. The bill so far: $5 billion and counting, partly routed through a classified line item in the Sentinel nuclear modernization program to keep congressional appropriators in the dark.

When Times journalists Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton, and Eric Schmitt reported those details, FBI Director Kash Patel tweeted "The Fake News. We'll find out why soon," and armed agents served subpoenas at reporters' homes less than an hour later, demanding grand jury testimony in three business days. The DOJ also went after phone records: the reporters', their spouses', and even one reporter's mother, a mental health professional with confidential clients.

Then it fell apart. The Times moved to quash, armed with the Second Circuit's three-part test from New York Times v. Gonzales, which requires the government to exhaust other avenues before unmasking a reporter's sources. That couldn't have happened in the 24 hours between publication and subpoena. At a hearing before Judge Arun Subramanian, the government folded and withdrew the subpoenas, but the judge wasn't done: he retained jurisdiction, floated sanctions, and ordered the DOJ to hand over its internal communications so he can find out whether hiding the subpoenas from two federal judges was an "oversight" or a strategy. The coming privilege fight could reach the Supreme Court.

Along the way: why there's no federal shield law, what Branzburg v. Hayes actually held, how the mid-trip plane swap over Iran gave the game away, and why "we don't accept Gonzales" is a wild thing for a federal prosecutor to say in open court.

(00:00) A gift jet and grand jury subpoenas
(01:02) Air Force One and the Qatari 747
(02:04) A $400M palace in the sky
(03:15) The library that's really a hotel
(03:56) Rushed retrofit, security traded away
(05:12) $5B hidden in a nuclear line item
(05:57) The mid-trip plane swap and Iran
(07:33) FBI agents at reporters' doors
(08:30) Subpoenas for reporters' families
(09:02) Branzburg and the Gonzalez test
(10:13) The Times moves to quash
(11:25) DOJ's secret magistrate subpoenas
(12:44) Showdown before Judge Subramanian
(14:43) Judge keeps jurisdiction, orders docs
(16:03) The coming privilege fight
(16:46) The First Amendment holds
(17:36) Why the right lawyer matters

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Somewhere on Reddit every single week, someone posts: "My neighbor cut down my trees. What are my options?" And then it happened to a friend of the channel — Phil DeFranco.

Phil and Lindsay DeFranco moved from Los Angeles to Milton, Georgia, in 2024, partly for the thick line of trees that gave their new home total privacy. Then came the saga TikTok knows as Treegate. Their neighbor, a doctor who wanted to expand his backyard and rebuild a detention pond, allegedly agreed to a simple deal: mark the trees you need to cut, and give notice first. Instead, the DeFrancos say, the chainsaws started before they ever answered — and by the time an arborist finished counting stumps, more than 200 mature trees were gone. The appraisal: $236,900 for the trees, plus $263,760 in ecological restoration. The neighbors tell a different story — engineering plans they say Phil approved in writing, a city permit, HOA sign-off, and a counterclaim of their own.

Who wins may come down to Georgia's brutal tree statutes. We break down the wrongful cutting and timber trespass laws (Georgia Code §§ 51-12-50 and 51-12-51) that can triple a plaintiff's damages, when an honest boundary mistake becomes willful conduct, the three state approaches to self-help — the Massachusetts rule, the Hawaii rule, and California's reasonableness test — why a permit or HOA approval doesn't create the right to enter a neighbor's land, and who owns a tree that straddles the property line.

Plus: the Maryland woman who won $933,000 after a neighbor took down nine of her trees, and a Colorado landowner whose 40-year-old Japanese maple was erased for a mountain view — then offered $200 in cash for it. Can Colorado triple damages the way Georgia can? Not so fast.

Tree law is no joke. It's the only legal specialty other than bird law with its own fandom — and by the end of this episode you'll understand why the entire internet roots for it.

And if you or your child has struggled with anxiety, depression, or other serious mental health issues after years on social media, the Eagle Team is partnering with one of the leading firms holding Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat accountable. Get a free case evaluation: https://legaleagle.link/harm

(00:00) Tree law is no joke

(00:49) Maryland's $933K tree verdict

(01:36) Treegate: the DeFrancos' 200 trees

(03:51) The neighbor's side of the story

(04:43) Self-help and the three state rules

(05:31) Georgia's treble damages statutes

(06:57) The Lorax weighs in

(07:28) Willful vs. innocent mistakes

(09:05) Who owns a boundary-line tree?

(10:00) Trespass and conversion

(10:54) Permits don't excuse trespass

(11:53) Colorado's Japanese maple caper

(13:21) Can Colorado triple the damages?

(16:13) The two worlds of tree law

(18:22) EagleTeam: social media lawsuits

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

In 2017, with Robert Mueller closing in, Trump raged "Where's my Roy Cohn?" Nine years, four indictments, and one reelection later, it looks like he finally got his man: Todd Blanche — Trump's personal defense lawyer from the hush money trial — is now Acting Attorney General, and the Senate is about to vote on making it permanent.Blanche's resume used to look normal: SDNY prosecutor, federal clerkships, biglaw. Then he bet his career on Trump — close to $10 million in fees from the Save America PAC, billing up to $800,000 a month at the height of the hush money trial — and rode it from criminal-defense retainer to the top law enforcement job in the country in roughly three years.We go through the record the Senate is being asked to bless. The Epstein files: redactions so slapdash the DOJ published survivors' names — Danielle Bensky testified she found her name, phone number, and addresses across three separate releases — and a "box-checking" meeting with survivors that went nowhere, in stark contrast to the nine hours Blanche spent with Ghislaine Maxwell before her transfer to a minimum-security prison camp. The $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund": Trump sued his own government for $10 billion over leaked tax returns, his personal lawyers "settled," and Blanche signed an addendum shielding Trump from tax liability — until Judge Kathleen Williams called it a fraud on the court and sent her ruling to the New York bar, where a complaint against Blanche is pending.Then the enemies list (James Comey indicted over a seashell photo, subpoenas for Gavin Newsom and Jerome Powell, a grand-conspiracy grand jury in Judge Aileen Cannon's courthouse) and the friends list (Steve Bannon's conviction vacated, a $722 million crypto fraud case dropped on the eve of trial, Live Nation's antitrust case abandoned after it hired Kellyanne Conway). Plus the DOJ's demands for 30 states' voter rolls, the exodus of 16,000 employees, federal judges declaring the "presumption of regularity" dead — and the 11–11 committee math that puts Blanche's fate in the hands of Thom Tillis and John Cornyn.Roy Cohn died disbarred, with the IRS seizing everything he ever owned. Word to the wise, Todd Blanche.(00:00) Where's my Roy Cohn?(00:57) Who is Todd Blanche?(02:36) Keeper of the Epstein files(04:52) Survivors testify(07:04) A box-checking survivor meeting(08:03) Nine hours with Ghislaine Maxwell(09:03) The $1.8B anti-weaponization fund(11:30) An apples-to-oranges defense(13:30) A fraud on the court(15:10) The enemies list(17:30) The friends list(19:21) Menacing the 2026 election(21:51) The DOJ exodus and angry judges(25:54) Will the Senate confirm him?(27:37) OutroDo you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteamLEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

A Los Angeles jury just did what Big Tech spent twenty years insisting was legally impossible: it held Meta and YouTube liable for addicting a child. After nine days of deliberation, jurors awarded a 20-year-old named Kaylee $6 million — and hers is just the first of thousands of social media addiction lawsuits behind it.

Kaylee's story is the template for the whole mass action: a YouTube channel at six, Instagram by nine, 284 videos posted before she finished elementary school, and stretches of 16-hour days on the platforms. She testified that the likes-and-followers feedback loop kept pulling her back through anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, cyberbullying, and sextortion — the pattern expert witnesses told the jury is the hallmark of addiction.

Isn't this exactly the lawsuit Section 230 was supposed to make impossible? We break down the 26 words that created the internet and the exceptions that swallowed the shield here — Doe v. Internet Brands, Lee v. Amazon, and Lemmon v. Snap, where courts held that platforms still answer for their own product design. Judge Carolyn Kuhl drew the same line in KGM v. Meta: beauty filters, infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications aren't third-party content, they're design choices — and a jury would decide whether they were a substantial factor in Kaylee's harm.

At trial, TikTok and Snapchat settled just days before opening statements. Meta and Google rolled the dice. Legendary plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Lanier confronted Mark Zuckerberg — testifying before a jury for the first time — with Meta's own documents: "If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens." A count of four million under-13 users in the US. Employees comparing Instagram to a drug and describing the company as "basically pushers." And a 20-foot collage of selfies Kaylee posted before she was old enough to have an account at all.

Then, the verdict itself: what California products liability law asked the jury to decide, the 70/30 fault split between Meta and YouTube, the malice finding behind $3 million in punitive damages, and the $375 million New Mexico verdict against Meta just 24 hours earlier. Big Tobacco's reckoning took 50 years. Big Tech's may have just started.

Plus a LegalEagle announcement: the Eagle Team is partnering with one of the leading firms taking Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat to task, representing families harmed by social media addiction. Contact us today to learn more about your eligibility: https://legaleagle.link/harm

(00:00) A landmark verdict against Big Tech

(01:04) Thousands of cases waiting in line

(02:13) Section 230: the 26 words

(03:18) Where Section 230 ends

(04:35) KGM v. Meta, the bellwether

(05:46) The ruling that forced a trial

(07:02) Settlements and Kaylee's testimony

(08:11) Meta's internal documents

(09:52) Zuckerberg takes the stand

(13:01) What the jury had to decide

(13:50) Damages: the 70/30 split and punitives

(14:34) The next wave: New Mexico and beyond

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

A Roblox studio head told a reporter the company might be exploiting child labor, then argued it was actually a gift to the kids. That quote now sits in the middle of a federal lawsuit.

In May 2026, the mother of a 13-year-old boy in Georgia sued Roblox Corporation in the Northern District of California, claiming the roughly $40 billion platform runs on the unpaid labor of children. Her son, the complaint says, registered at age eight with no parental consent and no age check, then spent years doing game design, testing, and advanced Lua scripting for adult-led DevEx teams, more than 40 hours a week, paid nothing.

Roblox pays its creators in Robux, a currency it prints, prices, and controls. A player buys 1,000 Robux for about $13; a developer who earns that same 1,000 can cash out around $3.80, and only after clearing an age-13 minimum, a 30,000-Robux threshold, tax paperwork, and Roblox's sole discretion. Kids under 13 can earn Robux but can't cash out at all. The complaint calls that company scrip, the pay-in-tokens scheme the Fair Labor Standards Act outlawed in 1938.

We break down every piece of the case: the FLSA child-labor and minimum-wage claims, California Labor Code Section 212's ban on paying wages in scrip, the unjust enrichment and negligence counts, the constructive-trust fight over the perpetual license Roblox takes on creators' work (AI training included), why a minor can disaffirm the arbitration clause under JR v. Electronic Arts, and the Rule 23 class-certification battle ahead. Roblox says these kids are hobbyists having fun. Its own studio head kept calling it a job.

CHAPTERS

(00:00) The studio head's quiet part
(02:20) What Roblox actually is
(03:41) The lawsuit, in brief
(04:24) Teaching kids to code
(05:08) DevEx: when play became work
(05:47) The Talent Hub job board
(06:28) Paying developers in Robux
(07:34) Company scrip and the FLSA
(09:22) The Robux exchange rate
(10:29) Who actually cashes out
(13:06) Inside the complaint
(15:20) Unjust enrichment and AI
(16:37) What the case is worth
(17:52) Certifying the class
(19:26) The arbitration problem
(21:58) EagleTeam

Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).