Counter-Strike Gambling Site Owners Sued

Counter-Strike Gambling Site Owners Sued

Following on from news earlier in the week – where a pair of popular YouTubers were found to be owners of a Counter-Strike gambling site without disclosing that information – Trevor “Tmartn” Martin and Thomas “ProSyndicate” Cassell are being sued.

In a story from Polygon, a complaint was filed today in the Southern District of Florida against Valve and the CSGO Lotto owners.

Martin pulled down a video he shot yesterday about the controversy. The video featured the YouTuber apologising for the scandal in a rather deflective way, going on to say that his connection to the betting site had been public record – a claim which has been refuted by fans and others who have watched his previous content. You can watch the full video (which has been re-uploaded by a party not associated with Martin) below:

The suit was filed by an anonymous parent on behalf of their child. They are accusing Valve of making a digital marketplace that encourages and allows third-party gambling sites to flourish. CSGO Lotto allows players to trade in their cosmetic skins – some of which sell for thousands of dollars – like casino chips. The legal action is also targeting similar sites like CSGO Diamonds and CSGO Lounge, all of which allow users to link their Steam accounts to them.

Neither Martin nor Cassell have commented on the suit. CSGO Lotto’s legal representative had this to say: "Given that there is litigation pending, no further public comments will be given on this matter.  My comments will be contained in legal arguments to the court, at the appropriate time."



 

Relevant Articles

 

Comments Comments (8)

 
Posted by Mattress
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 12:33 PM
1
Thank goodness - despicable behaviour.
 
 
 
Posted by ThatUndeadLegacy
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 3:09 PM
-1
if people lose money gambling it's their own fault.
 
 
 
Posted by Mattress
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 5:38 PM
-1
8 July 2016, 03:09 PM Reply to ThatUndeadLegacy
if people lose money gambling it's their own fault.
Wow - it's not only illegal gambling but the YouTubers in question also didn't disclose their direct ties to the product they were promoting as well as having large audiences, the large proportion of which are children. What part of dishonest marketing to children about gambling seems acceptable to you?
 
 
 
Posted by ThatUndeadLegacy
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 5:46 PM
-1
8 July 2016, 05:38 PM Reply to Mattress
Wow - it's not only illegal gambling but the YouTubers in question also didn't disclose their direct ties to the product they were promoting as well as having large audiences, the large proportion of which are children. What part of dishonest marketing to children about gambling seems acceptable to you?
Never said it's acceptable, people should have a little more common sense i would hope.
 
 
 
Posted by Altom905
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 10:35 PM
-
8 July 2016, 05:46 PM Reply to ThatUndeadLegacy
Never said it's acceptable, people should have a little more common sense i would hope.
Common sense ?
These two made out they had nothing to do with a gambling website they owned, and promoted it to children.
 
 
 
Posted by Mattress
On Friday 8 Jul 2016 10:53 PM
-
8 July 2016, 05:46 PM Reply to ThatUndeadLegacy
Never said it's acceptable, people should have a little more common sense i would hope.
Nothing astounds me anymore with some people's ignorance. You not only didn't condemn the actions of the offenders but went on to blame the victims who in no way could have known that the YouTubers were promoting their own product. Classy opinion...
 
 
 
Posted by ThatUndeadLegacy
On Saturday 9 Jul 2016 11:51 AM
-1
8 July 2016, 10:53 PM Reply to Mattress
Nothing astounds me anymore with some people's ignorance. You not only didn't condemn the actions of the offenders but went on to blame the victims who in no way could have known that the YouTubers were promoting their own product. Classy opinion...
yes because nobody ever has an ulterior movie.
 
 
 
Posted by ThatUndeadLegacy
On Saturday 9 Jul 2016 11:52 AM
-1
9 July 2016, 11:51 AM Reply to ThatUndeadLegacy
yes because nobody ever has an ulterior movie.
*edit, Motive.