When a Livestream Turns Into a Lawsuit: Stedman v Syztmz Explained

High Court defamation cases can be highly technical. It generally makes it very difficult for those representing themselves without the benefit of legal representation to comply with the necessary procedures and/or to get the law right. This one, involving a claim brought by an unrepresented individual in respect of online streaming, alleged defamation and a tangle of companies, is no exception. But at its heart, Stedman v Syztmz is a very modern dispute: a falling-out between a streamer and a former collaborator that spilled onto a livestream — and then into court. Here’s what happened and why the High Court ultimately narrowed the case down to just one defendant.

The background: a working relationship goes sour

Harry Stedman worked as a social media manager for an online casino streamer known professionally by the pseudonym of ‘Syztmz’. The arrangement ran from late 2022 until November 2023, when Syztmz ended the monthly retainer but paid Stedman a final goodwill sum and suggested there might be occasional work for Stedman in future.

After that, something odd happened. Monthly payments of £1,000 continued to land in Stedman’s account for several months. Syztmz later said this was a mistake. Stedman, having initially admitted that he knew that the payments were made in error, said he believed the payments were a form of ongoing support or an informal retainer whilst alternative work was being explored.

By June 2024, the disagreement came to a head. Messages were exchanged, lawyers were mentioned and relations deteriorated quickly.

The livestreams and the libel claim

Shortly after the payment dispute flared up, Syztmz discussed the situation on his Kick livestream. These streams were watched by thousands of viewers and, for a time, remained available on the platform on an on-demand basis.

Stedman felt that what was said about him during these streams damaged his reputation. He complained to Kick and later brought a libel claim in the High Court.

Rather than suing only the streamer, Stedman also brought claims against:

This is where the legal complexity really set in.

Early problems with the case

From the start, the court had concerns about how the claim was put together. The original paperwork did not clearly identify which statements were said to be defamatory and one company was sued even though it appeared to have nothing to do with the dispute at all.

The claim was paused (or “stayed”) more than once whilst the court required Stedman to tidy up his pleadings and clarify who he was actually suing and why.

Multiple applications followed: requests for default judgment, injunctions, amendments to the claim and challenges to the court’s jurisdiction. The judge later described some of these applications as completely without merit and warned about the risk of court resources being wasted and the possibility of a Civil Restraint Order being made by the court if the Claimant continued to operate on the basis he did, especially given that the Claimant had the benefit of a fee remission in respect of court fees (i.e. a means by which those with lesser means can obtain access to justice without court fees being an unnecessary burden).

Can platforms and sponsors be sued for what a streamer says?

A central issue in the case was whether Kick or Medium Rare NV could legally be held responsible for Syztmz’s words.

Under English defamation law, there is an important rule (section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013):

You generally cannot sue someone for defamation who is not the author, editor or publisher of a statement if it is reasonably practicable to sue the person who actually said it.

The judge applied this rule firmly. Syztmz was clearly the person who made the statements. Stedman had already issued a claim against him (in procedural terms). Syztmz was actively taking part in the case and had even brought a counterclaim.

That meant it was reasonably practicable to sue the primary speaker and therefore the law strongly discouraged extending the case to others.

Why Kick was not liable

The court accepted that Kick hosts livestreams and chat comments, but that alone does not make it a publisher in the legal sense.

Kick did not control what Syztmz said during live broadcasts. Sponsorship and commercial relationships between Kick and creators did not change that. The platform was more like a venue than an editor.

What about after the stream ended, when the video stayed online for up to 30 days?

Here, the judge said Stedman’s complaints to Kick were too vague. They did not clearly identify the specific statements complained of or explain why they were defamatory. Without that level of detail, Kick could not be said to have knowingly authorised or adopted the alleged libel.

In short: hosting content is not the same as endorsing it and Kick did not cross the legal line.

Why Medium Rare NV was also out

Medium Rare NV did not run the streams, did not speak during them and did not control what was said. The court found no realistic basis for treating it as an author, editor or publisher.

An attempt to swap this company into the claim at a late stage was refused. The judge was clear that the claim against it had no real prospect of success.

Anonymity: why the streamer kept his name private

One unusual aspect of the case was that Syztmz was allowed to remain anonymous in court proceedings.

The judge accepted evidence that the streamer had received serious online threats against him from unrelated parties to the case and that revealing his real identity could pose a genuine risk to him. Allowing him to be sued under his online alias was described as a limited and proportionate exception to the principle of open justice.

Where the case now stands

By the end of the judgment, the position was clear:

That leaves a single dispute: Stedman versus Syztmz and Syztmz’s counterclaim in return for malicious prosecution.

The judge also floated the possibility of mediation, suggesting that both sides might want to pause and take stock rather than continue down an increasingly expensive and entrenched path.