You might remember this guy.

>> You can now own Endgame on a PC starting

at $59 a month with NZXC's new

subscription flag

>> and this subsequent apology that had

dozens of cuts per paragraph.

>> I want to acknowledge also that there

are ad campaigns out there done that

were not factual, didn't represent the

actual program, calling out ownership

when it really is a rental program. And

today it looks like there's some justice

to the tunes of millions of dollars in a

preliminary settlement offering that

NZXT has come to with plaintiffs

attorneys who filed a classaction

complaint looking to become a class

action lawsuit against NZXT for its

rental computer program, which is where

these clips come from. We published

those in our 2024 investigation into

what we called a predatory evil scam

wherein NDXT and Fragile, a partner,

were renting out computers to people who

couldn't afford an outright purchase.

But among many other shady things like

advertising the program to children on

the basis of maybe you'll win a Fortnite

tournament and be able to pay for the

whole thing. And if you think about it,

Carter PCs did make a video about it.

You could literally get one of these PCs

for one month and then win a Fortnite

tournament or something and have enough

money to buy your own PC.

>> NZXT also had issues with things like

the specs of the computer changing. When

you switch from buying to renting, they

would silently swap out the parts to be

worse. Additionally, this is just

generally the pioneering of you'll own

nothing and be happy in the home

computing space, which we just

vehemently disagree with. So, this is a

rare instance today of what looks like

might become some justice in the

consumer electronics world. Public court

filings for a class action filed after

our investigative report, citing our

report as evidence and making civil RICO

or racketeer influenced and corrupt

organizations claims show that NZXT and

attorneys for a class action lawsuit

have reached a preliminary settlement

that would forgive the debt up to $5,000

of those in debt collections for those

who rented computers from NZXT and

Partner Fragile. In other instances,

users who rented the computers for two

years will now be able to own those

computers and stop making payments on

them. And finally, users who rented and

returned the computers will be entitled

to cash if this preliminary settlement

is approved by the judge. The claims in

the class action filing were major with

our own attorney analyst of legal claims

saying this.

>> The fact that it has a private right of

action is uh very interesting because

again evokes the emphasis on money. Mhm.

>> is that it is uh RICO seems to be

focused a great deal on attacking the

funding of criminal operations or just

unscrupulous civil operations. But the

idea that you're engaging in improper

business practices uh means that the

money should be something that people

can go after more directly. So this

$3.45 million preliminary settlement is

in relation to the NZXT and fragile

rental computer as we called it scam. We

still maintain it's a scam. It is I mean

they're still doing it. So this isn't a

clean victory. But having debt

forgiveness for people who fell for

this rental computer program scam

thinking they'd be getting something

else, whether that's different

components or whether they thought it

was rent to own because some of the

language and the marketing, the

advertising, having debt forgiveness

right now, especially when it is some of

the worst economic times that we've seen

in over a decade. A lot of people are

really struggling right now financially

and having that in the settlement I

think is awesome for the people who

might be just in a bad position and this

has contributed to that. Our

understanding is that the debt

collectors related to this program have

been pretty aggressive. And given that

the NDXT fragile rental program costs

seemed mathematically worse than taking

a predatory, possibly criminally backed

loan to buy the computer outright by our

previous research where we did some

digging. It makes sense that this debt

would be valuable to collectors and that

people customers would feel tricked into

the program. But the saga is hopefully

coming to an end. So let's go over some

of the details. We brought you this

video with store.gamersex.net

and the temporary 10% discount code puck

gamers nexus. That's p u ck gamers nexus

as one word. You can use code puck

gamers nexus right now on the store to

tell us to go puck ourselves just like

NZXT probably wants to tell us right

about now. You can use the code to grab

our brand new wireframe V2 mouse mat on

the store. Also accompanied by our new

Micro Slop t-shirt that's on its way to

our warehouse right now. These feature a

parody Micro Slop logo with a blue

screen of death frowny face, warning

marks from Event Viewer, and our

rendition of Tux the Penguin hidden

away, and of course, Micro Slop. So,

everyone you pass either thinks you work

there for now or they know your thoughts

on AI. The Wireframe V2 mouse mat on the

GN store was made by Andrew on the team

in Blender. Fully 3D modeled and then

represented in a highquality mouse mat

that you see here. The mat can easily

accommodate a keyboard and mouse has

fine detail with the city built of

wireframe components for the heat sink

RAM because let's be honest, it's the

only place any of us can get any now and

cooling tubes. And we use a matching

blue stitching for anti- fray with a

blue rubber underside for some unique GN

flare. We modeled these to ridiculous

levels of depth in that there are things

in the model that you can't even see in

the product because we went that deep

with it. Like for example, the springs

underneath the switch underneath the

keycap that's represented in the matte

surface. Head to store.gamersacess.net

to support our deep dive independent

research content like this directly.

We'll start with the big news which is

the preliminary settlement. The

preliminary here is because the two

parties, so NZXT and Fragile, which are

the defendants, and the plaintiff's

attorneys, which are the class action

attorneys in relation to the rental

computer program, the pursuing some form

of damages, RICO civil claims, things

like that. These two groups have come to

an agreement. They've agreed. Now, it's

subject to judge approval. The judge in

these cases, as we understand it,

basically looks to make sure that the

settlement is fair for not only the

plaintiffs and the defendants, but also

for the people who would be receiving

that settlement. So, it's pending

approval there. But, as far as NZXT,

Fragile, and all the attorneys are

concerned, they've come to an agreement.

Uh, so that's the big news. We're going

to go over that. And then, if you're out

of the loop on this stuff, it isn't in

relation to coverage we ran in 2024.

We'll have a kind of quick recap for you

after we get through the basics. But

here are the key facts for what this

settlement is. The court value of the

settlement is $3.45 million. Of that

$923,117.92

specific there will be debt forgiveness

for people being chased by debt

collectors for the rental computers. An

additional $1,216,1292

of relief will be granted in the form of

transferring ownership of rental

computers to their customers. NDXT Flex

rental computer customers who have one

paid for at least two years and two who

fill in a form stating that they

believed they would come to own the

computer after a period of rentorship

will now own that computer. So, if you

have one of these NZXT Flex rental

computers right now and you've had it

for I think it's two years or more at

this point, then if you believed that

you would come to own the computer at

the end of the term, which you probably

did because that's what NZXT's

advertising and advertising partners

certainly seemed to suggest as we said

in our reporting previously, uh then you

should fill in that form and you would

come to possession of the computer. Flex

Rental customers who currently owe a

debt for their rental computers will

have that debt forgiven up to a total of

$5,000 of debt forgiveness per customer.

If a customer is delinquent on rental

fees, that delinquency again will be

forgiven up to this amount. NZXT flex

rental customers who have returned their

computers and who do not have any debt

are still entitled to a cash payout. The

total payout will depend on how many

people file a valid claim. But for

example, if say 10% of valid customers

file, which as we understand it would be

a relatively high percentage for class

actions, then each person would get

around maybe 450 to $500 plus or minus a

bit. But again, to be clear, that's

going to depend on how many people file

a valid claim. So if a 100% of affected

people claim, then each person gets less

money in total in the situations where

they were a customer who rented it,

returned the computer, and owe no debt.

it doesn't affect the amount of money

for debt forgiveness uh and it doesn't

affect the amount of uh rental computer

ownership sort of transfers that is

coming from a a separate pool of money

in this total settlement. Um there's a

common misconception with class actions

that unclaimed money from these types of

agreements just all goes to the lawyers.

That's not true. Actually, it's going to

be distributed evenly based on the

amount of claims that they have. And

then the amount of money for the lawyers

that's determined separately by a judge

as normally a percentage. So, uh,

anyway, for people who've been getting

chased by debt collectors, uh, $923,000,

$923, $117.92

of the total $3.45 million settlement

will be forgiveness for those debts and

uh, $1.216 million will be for the

computers in the form of being able to

keep them. So, that's all the basics.

There are dozens of pages to these

documents. We've been reading through

all of them. It's kind of like a 14-page

summary we read through and that's the

end result of it. So, it looks like some

justice for this. Couple important

points though. First of all, NZXT and

Fragile still have rental programs and

they've rebranded them as part of this

lawsuit. And so part of that rebranding

means that NZXT has now changed the

naming such that it is not

as in my opinion misleading as

previously where now instead of when you

switch from purchase to rental it

doesn't keep the name and silently

change the specs because you I

guess what it does instead is changes

the name. At GN, our belief is that

these rental computer programs,

especially as they're structured,

especially with the cost associated,

they are, I think, just the absolute

worst value you could get for getting a

computer. There are better ways to get

computers. We talked about them in our

original piece. That hasn't changed. So,

the finance, the money side, the cost as

a consumer, that hasn't changed. It's

all the same in terms of the value that

you get. You would be better off in a

lot of situations

buying a computer on a credit card or

something, which we don't necessarily

recommend either, but a lot of people do

that. And financially, you know,

depending on your situation

independently, it's a lot better than

the rental program. So, all that

that's still there. Renting a

computer is still just abhorentt. I

think it's part of this you'll own

nothing and be happy. And you know the

big difference between renting something

like a piece of property to live in like

an apartment and renting a computer both

of which are basically necessary at this

point. I mean if you want to look for

jobs you probably need a computer. You

could go to a library I guess but the

point is computers and the internet at

this stage they are although maybe less

important than shelter they are up there

with effectively utilities that you

probably need to get anywhere in life.

And so they're important. The difference

between a rental apartment and a rental

computer is that your apartment isn't

going to become technologically obsolete

in a couple years when Microsoft

decides, "Fuck you. Windows isn't going

to work with that apartment anymore."

Pretty big difference. Also, there are

protections in place for renting an

apartment in a lot of places. I mean,

there's normally a cap on how much they

can increase the rent. There's all kinds

of stuff to protect people. With rental

computers, those protections, they're

not the same. They're not as robust.

They're not as defined. And that's

because this is a new area and it's it's

being worked out as we speak. This is

part of figuring out what the limits are

to this unfortunately. Uh because all of

this is just part of the you'll rent

everything that's in your life from your

car to your house to your computer

apparently. But anyway, so the main

points here, uh preliminary settlement

means that this could change a little

bit. They are going through that

process. It's the judge who's kind of

reading over things next and making a

determination. I suspect this is a done

deal, but if it changes, we'll let you

all know in a hardwood news update

unless there's some major shakeup.

Second point here, uh, a settlement

means it will not go to a trial by jury.

Now, for a lot of reasons, you might

typically want a trial if you think you

have a really strong case because you

could set a precedent. you might get a

lot more money out of it too because

these the claims that they filed are

pretty bad for NZXT like civil

Rico charges and a whole bunch of other

stuff talking about false advertising

you know they're marketing to kids which

has all kinds of different implications

for it and so it looks pretty bad for

NZXT. Now, one thing here that's maybe

unique is that the entire PC industry is

in a massive downtrend right now and we

happen to have for a separate content

piece we're doing some data that

includes sales performance of different

companies and we've cross uh compared it

and everybody is hurting bad right now

like it is is unless you're Samsung,

Micron, SKH Highex, Nvidia or AMD I

guess maybe Intel but if you're like a a

case company or a pre-built company or

you make liquid coolers. All of these

things NZXT is, you're probably in

pretty bad shape right now. And one of

the things that we've kind of heard

through the industry is that NZXT right

now in particular has absolutely fallen

off a cliff for sales. And a lot

of that is related to the industry

downturn in general due to DRAM

shortages and AI component demand of

consumer uh silicon that could have gone

to consumers like memory. And so because

of that, NZXT has now dropped from a

first or top two seller position in some

of these retailers with some of the

categories they sell to not even in the

top four or five anymore. And the end

result of that is uh you know, if if

this these shortages continue and if

companies start going out of business,

there's a real risk that NZXT could go

under before a a lawsuit would actually

be settled by a jury. That's a really

slow process. So, I don't suspect the

lawyers really had any insight to any of

this when they were working on all this

stuff, but that might be a reason that a

settlement in this instance makes sense

if you want to make sure you get

something in the event they do go under.

And I don't know if NXT will go under or

not. I'm just saying right now it looks

really bad for a lot of the companies

like them in the industry. Let's dig

into more of the specifics of the

agreement proposal and the summary. So,

in addition to the financial side that

we already went over, the document also

gets into some details on caveats,

things like that. As for how many people

are affected, we got some pretty

interesting numbers. The document states

that the settlement class, which would

be anyone affected by NZXD and Fragile's

program, consists of 19,322

people, both past and current

subscribers during the period. The

period is defined as October 19th, 2023

until March 30th, 2026. any newer

subscribers from the last 10 days or so

wouldn't be eligible. Relating to debt

forgiveness, the document states that

those ineligible for debt forgiveness or

whose debt is less than $500 and if they

don't want to keep the computer, they

can instead claim cash from the other

pool of money. The document also states

that debt forgiveness is given to class

members quote more than 90 days

delinquent on payments and quotes.

That's some of the eligibility and

there's some definitions and limits

there. They also say that quote debt

forgiveness shall be provided

automatically end quote for those who

don't opt out. In other words, as we

understand it, you don't need to file a

form to have eligible debt forgiven. It

should just happen. Although we need to

wait for all this to be final from the

judge, and we aren't legal experts, but

that's our plain text interpretation of

this. Anything that doesn't get cashed

or successfully deposited within 90 days

of it being sent would be used other

than for whatever administrative fees

that are associated with managing it to

be distributed prora to other members.

The document specifically spells out

that none of it goes back to fragile or

MDXT. We had a chance to speak with the

plaintiff's attorneys to get some

additional information. So the

plaintiff's attorneys are CPM law. They

are class action attorneys. might sound

familiar to some of you who've watched

the channel for a while because they

previously represented us in a separate

class action case. They are not active

representatives of us right now. Uh but

we had a chance to talk to them again.

They've actually been on the channel in

the past and they were saying that

because there's good documentation for

this program. They think it should be

fairly easy to find the people who would

be eligible to make claims. So sometimes

the problems with class actions are

maybe it's something that went on for

six, seven years or something like I did

not mean to choose those numbers. I

swear I swear to God I didn't mean to

choose this. Let's let's say it went on

for seven or eight years or something

and that actually was just a common

amount of time. All right, it wasn't

supposed to be a meme. that meme.

But if it went on for seven or eight

years and if you don't have email

records for your customers, then it

might be hard to track people down to

say, "Hey, you are entitled to money

from this class action." Um, so in this

case, what I think you should do is if

you were a customer of this, one of the

20,000 or so people, you should in your

inbox probably whitelist terms like NZXT

and Fragile. So, and Flex maybe, so that

uh when they eventually start sending

out emails about how you might need to

sign up for certain uh payouts or things

like that, you make sure you see it

doesn't go to spam. So, that's just my

thoughts on that, but status of the

settlement is pretty simple here. The

final approval hearing is to be set

sometime after September with no firm

date yet. That's the point at which the

judge will finalize everything. Our

understanding is that CPM law will

create the settlement website and the

phone number within 21 days of this

document that we've been looking at

going public. So that should be up

within a couple weeks at this point. So

let's just say we get down to September

or whenever they approve this and say

the judge approves it. At that stage the

people who are affected would have kind

of three options. One is they could opt

out of receiving anything from the

settlement and in that case they would

retain their right to then sue NZXE or

Fragile separately. So that might be an

option if someone thinks they have a

separate case that they want to pursue.

A second option would be remaining in

the settlement which in some cases

doesn't require any action because it's

automatic. In others it does require

action like submitting documents to show

you have a valid claim. And at that

point you'd file your claim on the

website uh whenever it goes live and get

money or relief from the settlement.

Then if you do that, my understanding is

that like in most of these class

actions, you would at that point release

any claims on fragile or NXT at least

relating to this matter. I'm not sure if

that extends beyond that uh depend on

the language they put at that time. So

that would mean uh you lose your ability

to individually sue them at least

relating to this situation if that

matters to you. And then the third and

final option would be working with a

lawyer to tell the judge that you object

to the settlement and why, but you'd

still remain in the settlement. So if

the judge is like, "Nah, I I don't agree

with your reasoning, you're not giving

up the ability to get that money." Um,

uh, and then you would have the

opportunity to object. So that's our

understanding of it from speaking with

some of the attorneys on how this stuff

works. As for what got us here, we'll

keep this pretty brief since we have two

whole videos on this. One of them an

hour long from 2024, but NXT and Fragile

are the partners here. Fragile

facilitates these flex programs. They do

this with other companies as well. We've

seen it for rental headphones. One of

the companies they work with, you can

subscribe to your headphone. Literally,

it is a subscription pair of headphones.

So, the two companies partnered together

on a computer rental subscription that

cleverly put aging inventory through

circulation when it was sitting in the

warehouse, sitting on shelves, and

allows that inventory to go to work and

make money for them. This is coming from

the same company that dragged its feet

for months when one of its products was

a literal fire hazard and people had the

NZXT H1 MiniITXK's catching on fire

because of a design flaw in the riser

cable, which is something that we later

went on to prove and ra them over the

coals enough that they eventually uh did

actually do something to make it right.

Fire. at that

you see it.

All right,

there it is. The biggest problem with

all this, the rental program, of course,

is the fact that there's a subscription

computer program at all. And uh the

pricing is really in a lot of cases not

any better than it was previously.

They've changed some of the marketing

language on the website, but this is

still like if you were to buy on credit

in a lot of cases, at least you end up

owning it at the end of it. And that was

kind of the whole big point the first

time we covered this stuff. So, uh it's

just, you know, people getting ripped

off indefinitely for a subscription

computer. Even if NZXT goes through and

changes the marketing, makes it so that

they're not making false statements or

makes it so that their advertising

partners aren't falsely advertising it,

whatever the case may be, it's still at

the end of the day a subscription

computer program. And that is leading

the charge for the you'll own nothing

corporate

rentorship feudal the tech feudalism

that we're in now where they're just

part of the problem with everyone else.

NTX is still running computers out in

the very least. We went through their

website. The language is clearer in some

spots that we checked now. They call it

very plainly and right on the main page,

a month-to-month subscription, and the

builds now have firmer statements on the

specs. So, the lawsuit has changed the

marketing language, but it hasn't

changed the existence of the rental

program itself. Of course, personally,

I'd love to see no rental, no

subscription computer program, period,

just cuz the pricing is not good. And

it's just inherently, I think, kind of

predatory. I mean, it puts people in a

position with, in particular, a piece of

hardware equipment these days that you

kind of nest in. You put your whole life

in a computer, makes it very difficult

to relinquish it. And people who are

less technically capable in particular

will be more vulnerable there where it's

just it's hard to rip everything out and

move it somewhere else. And so you get

kind of locked into rentorship. And so

I'm just I don't like these programs

period. I think renting a computer is

not good for uh the future of owning

stuff in particular important

electronics that you need to work and

find jobs and make money and talk to

your friends and all that stuff. It's a

it is a functionally utility I think at

this point. But anyway, the the program

continues. They've just changed how

they're marketing it. NZXT, it would

appear, needs to somehow generate money

and value after their 100 million dollar

Francisco Partners investment years ago.

Uh, and it seems that this is going to

be their way to do it. So, the lawsuit

was serious and although it won't be

tested in front of a jury, uh, in this

case, like I was talking about, NZXT, as

we understand it, is not in good

financial shape right now. I haven't

seen the numbers, but we've had enough

people in the industry tell us that and

especially their competitors who've

noticed that suddenly they've dropped

down in the rankings substantially that

maybe it makes sense to do a settlement

instead in this particular instance. Uh,

and we'll talk with attorney Vincent

Augusta who will join me to analyze some

of the original lawsuit and the filing

so that everyone can kind of get a

better understanding of what the claims

were and we'll talk conclusions. I read

through pretty much all of this except

for the parts where they cite us which

is like half of it.

>> Several dozens of citations I believe to

>> I think if you control F nexus I think

it comes up like 40 times.

>> Yeah. Uh, so I read through most of it

and um I I mean I guess maybe this is

normal for this type of complaint, but

it's it seems to me to be like

relatively aggressive on the things

they're going after on describing you

know anti-consumer behavior uh

misrepresentation andor this is my word

but andor fraud things like that. So um

Rico jumps out at me

>> absolutely as it should. So RICO is the

racketeer influenced or and corrupt

organizations act. Uh so it's a piece of

legislation from the early 1970s uh

designed pretty specifically to combat

criminal syndicates uh operating at the

time. Uh so RICO uh is an attempt to

create severe punishments for

specifically for racketeering which is

elicit acts or illegal acts uh that are

done for commercial gain or profit

>> uh in so far as they're done with uh a

group of individuals

>> creating what's called an enterprise.

Okay. And so the idea is is when these

individual uh persons or entities engage

in a criminal enterprise and they

repeatedly commit these criminal acts

>> uh there should be a punishment for them

>> uh specifically because they are part of

this criminal enterprise.

>> Okay.

>> Uh and so this was

>> so this is a requirement like not just

this wouldn't be used on a single

operator operating in isolation.

>> Yes. RICO RICO by its very terms

requires that there be a criminal

enterprise separate from the illegal

entities and that there be um at least

uh two predicate acts okay to to invoke

the the the statute. Uh and so this was

more or less specifically designed to uh

address the problem with uh criminal

syndicates who were operating by all

appearances legitimate businesses uh and

then were engaging in criminal activity

behind the scenes in conjunction with

others doing the same thing. Okay.

>> And it was very difficult to prosecute

individuals because of the u perhaps the

lack of severity for individual crime or

the lack of connection to the other

parts of the syndicate. And so RICO

presents uh some very uh punishing

consequences to being involved in this

enterprise for a larger array of people

participating. So if you have knowledge

of the other criminal elements and you

yourself are engaging in some of these

racketeering activities, uh you can be

held to uh be liable under RICO, both

the criminal and the civil portions of

it. And then on the civil side, I think

you were telling me that more recently,

uh, they've added this private right of

action.

>> Well, the private right of action has

existed since RICO was was made. There

was a recent Supreme Court decision that

talked about its application for

personal injury.

>> Okay. Um, but for the purposes of this

uh lawsuit, uh, they're leveraging the

just the the wording of the statute

itself, uh, which allows for anyone who

is harmed in their their personal

belongings or their business and their

property by defendants who are engaging

in racketeering to bring a civil action

uh, by themselves. They do not need to

wait for the government to bring this

action. They can seek to recover. And in

doing so, uh, the statute allows them to

also seek treble damages, which is three

times compensatory damages as punitives,

uh, costs, and very importantly,

attorneys fees.

>> What are the attorneys, the plaintiffs

saying NZXT did sort of specifically

that would warrant, you know, a RICO

claim?

>> So, RICO identifies, I think it's 35

different illegal activities that

constitute these predicate acts. Uh they

generally include some of the most

heinous crimes you can think of. Things

like

>> murder,

>> murder for hire, uh extortion,

trafficking drugs, the sale of chemical

and nuclear weapons. Okay.

>> Uh but there are also

>> Is that why NZXT is

>> That is not in the lawsuit.

>> Not not the nukes.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. I just want to just to make it

clear

>> this time. It's not the nukes

>> this this time. Yes.

>> Yes. Okay. Okay. No nukes at NZXT. The N

does not stand for nukes. no allegations

as well that they may or may not that's

also good to know the attorneys here

that they're seeking uh to recover under

RICO for the more uh commercial uh white

collar elements. So things like uh mail

fraud, things like uh wire fraud appear

uh multiple times uh in the in the the

complaint.

>> What what are those mail fraud and wire

fraud? So fraud is the intentional

deception of another uh person or entity

that you specifically intend to deceive

and and has the effect of of deceiving.

Uh and mail fraud and wire fraud are

just when you perpetrate that fraud

using these uh communication devices.

And we consider that to generally be

>> more impactful because by using the mail

and by using wires you

>> by default have a larger potential range

of people you could harm. Uh it's

interstate which is another problem

because it evokes uh federal

jurisdiction and it evokes uh a number

of these consumer statutes uh that are

cited in in the complaint.

>> If I'm NZXT then is my defense Well, I

didn't mean to. I didn't know, right?

Like, let's is that a viable

defense if if uh you're being accused of

fraud, you know, is a reasonable

response. Well, I may have deceived

them, but I didn't mean to deceive them.

>> It could be a defense. U which is, I

think, why this 84page complaint spends

a great deal of time speaking to that

element of intent and that element of

knowledge and making the case that it is

functionally impossible. um going so far

as to directly quote uh representatives

of NZXT.

>> The CEO was quoted,

>> correct?

>> Yeah. He they specifically they had a

quote um about the advertising. Yeah.

>> Which I remember covering back when that

came out

>> uh where you know paraphrase something

to the extent of the advertisements were

inaccurate. Um, and that also, you know,

I saw another claim in here that was I I

want to say there was one for

um false advertising somewhere.

>> There is um I believe it's the

California uh statute that uh prohibits

false advertisement. Uh and

specifically, you'll see California

statutes come up a lot in lawsuits like

this and this one specifically. uh but

that particular statute provides uh

protections against consumer for

consumers against being misrepresented

through advertisements. The language of

the statute um speaks to making it

unlawful for business to make

disseminate or cause to be made or

disseminated to the public quote any

statement concerning personal property

uh which is untrue or misleading and

which is known or which by the exercise

of reasonable care should be known to be

untrue or misleading. Okay. Uh, so by

that language, and I'm not familiar with

the way California courts interpret the

statute, but that language to me seems

like a much easier burden for a

plaintiff to show as opposed to

>> the specific intent to defraud versus

you should have known if you were

exercising reasonable care.

>> Debt collection came up multiple times,

FDCPA.

So, what why is why is debt collection

in here? According to the allegations in

the complaint, uh there were multiple

debt collection processes that they the

plaintiffs are arguing violate various

consumer protection statutes against

unfair debt collections. Uh North

Carolina has one as well. There's a

federal one and California and a couple

of other states have them. The idea is

is that when you are collecting a debt,

uh even if the debt is legitimate, we

want to restrict certain behaviors uh

just in an effort to prevent abuse of

that process. And so if you look at the

allegations of the complaint, they're uh

alleging that Fragile had attempted to

collect on debts that had already been

paid, that had done harassing uh

outreach to individuals who had already

explained to them that they didn't want

to be communicated through those

mediums, uh or who uh were trying to

work something out, but were getting

maybe multiple calls, uh multiple

communications. And for those reasons,

the plaintiffs are alleging they

violated this particular statute.

>> Okay. There's a there's a word that

hasn't come up yet that you particularly

like and I don't want to rob you of the

joy of being the one to say it. It's a

it's a dword. So what what is the word

and how is it used here? So you will see

in the prayer for relief um that they

have asked specifically uh which is is

quite unusual uh is for disgorgement and

restitution of all earnings, profits,

compensation and benefits received by

defendants as a result of their unlawful

acts, missions and practices. So

disgorgement

>> disgorgement is an unnecessarily

visceral term uh used

>> like taking a needle to pop it or

>> Yeah, it is. The imagery is

>> You're welcome.

>> Very evocative. Um but the idea is is

that there is a traditional remedy in in

law is going to be to make the plaintiff

uh whole. Uh so the plaintiff is harmed

financially, we want to put the

plaintiff back in the position that they

were before the financial harm. Uh

restitution uh or disorgan is kind of

goes above and beyond that in so far as

it is an attempt to take away from the

defendant their illotten gains. Mhm. So

that's pretty much the recap of what the

lawsuit was and what the settlement

appears to be. The uh big takeaway here

is for me just personally commenting on

it as uh one of the sources for a lot of

the material that was cited in the you

know in the claims and stuff. Um it's

bittersweet where the thing I'm happy to

see is the relief and in particular the

debt relief for the people who need it.

That's great. You know, it's good to see

uh maybe it could have been more if they

went through a lawsuit and went to

trial, but a court ruling, but at the

same time, if NZX is in trouble

financially, I mean, I haven't

personally seen the numbers, but we're

hearing this from a lot of companies in

the industry, uh then maybe it makes

sense to go the settlement route. But

ultimately, the sweet part of the

bittersweet is definitely on getting the

help for people who need it. Uh the

bitter part is the fact that the program

continues to exist. And I just

personally, you all know in our audience

at this point what we think of how these

companies are continuing to siphon away

ownership and your ability to get access

to hardware, your ability to own things.

And on the data center side, it could be

as simple as things like local LLMs are

a threat to AI companies and this is

something they consider everywhere else.

I mean, it's just as simple as charge

you as much as humanly possible, as much

as you can afford before you break. And

then worst case, maybe you go rent a

computer because when the RAM prices are

so high, $120 a month, that doesn't

sound so bad anymore. Except actually,

it's it's still pretty bad because it's

indefinite. Um, so yeah, that's for me

bittersweet. But we wanted to bring you

the news. I am ultimately happy that

hopefully if this all gets approved uh

the people who need it most will get the

support. And then our continuing advice

of course would be to not subscribe to

hardware that you can actually own

especially not headphones. That was a

weird one. That was fragile though.

That's not NZXT. That's their other some

fragile other partner. But that's it for

this one. Thanks for watching. It's a

it's an interesting end to the saga.

We'll see if we have more to talk about

with it though. And you can subscribe

for more. Go to store.gamersacess.net to

support us directly. We could use your

help for this type of report or

patreon.com/gamersacess

if you like the kind of work we're doing

and you feel like the consumer advocacy

that we are pursuing on this channel and

our other one are helpful uh for you.

So, thanks for your support. Thanks for

watching and we'll see you all next