#Aragate: Twitch streamer Ara_Gaming lost channel in divorce?

0
2260
Ara_gaming

Ara_gamingIf you’ve been checking twitter you may have noticed the #aragate in the gaming community. The streamer Ara_Gaming lost her social media accounts during divorce proceedings at the hands of the judge and gave it to her now-ex-husband. The kicker? There is a new streamer at the channel who many are claiming bought the channel from said ex-husband.

The new person who was on the channel initially explained it as Ara “taking a different track in her life.” Whenever people asked her about the original Ara, she would vaguely mention legal issues. In addition to the “legal issues,” it’s been noted that Ara will not be streaming for five years. How could this be?

Apparently, a non-compete clause was signed stating that she couldn’t just set up a new Twitch channel and siphon away the original viewers. If this is the case, then that would mean Ara consented to the switch, and was bought out of her share of the channel, as if it were an asset like a house or car. Whether that is the case is up in the air, with not many facts and lots of hearsay.

Now, that might be completely legal and all that, but it sounds super skeezy. There has been speculation that Ara was in the wrong at the end of the marriage, and suggested the channel be given to him. This comes from an apparent interview the ex-husband did with YouTuber Izze Nobre. You can check out his run down of everything here, with some extra speculation. A key point to remember is that in Twitch’s Terms of Service: Section 11, Sub-section 1, line two that your channel is non-transferable.

There hasn’t been many details released, and it’s unclear what this means for streamers in the future. There isn’t really a precedent for this kind of situation in divorce law. Now, if Ara knowingly and willingly gave up the channel, then this is a closed case. However, if she was duped, bamboozled, or otherwise taken advantage of, things could get messy. Regardless, Twitch needs to make some kind of statement on the situation, because no matter who “owns” the channel, the “owner” should be streaming, not some new person because it’s against the Terms of Service.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here