Ridley v. Sweepsteaks Ltd.

Memorandum in Support re 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack… — Attachment 21

Issue: In *Ridley v. Sweepsteaks Ltd.*, defendant Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. argues that an Australian livestreaming company cannot be haled into a Virginia court on the basis that its platform is globally accessible, that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes it from liability for promotional content created and broadcast by third-party celebrity streamers, and that RICO and Virginia Consumer Protection Act claims fail where no predicate act or misrepresentation is specifically attributable to Kick. The non-obvious tension is whether a platform that allegedly structured and funded eight-figure contracts with U.S. celebrities for the express purpose of directing American audiences to a gambling site is a passive host at all — or something closer to a co-architect of the promotional scheme.

Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. filed this memorandum on May 6, 2026, as Document 21 in support of its Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss (Document 20), challenging the First Amended Complaint on three independent grounds before any answer has been filed. Kick argues it lacks sufficient Virginia contacts for personal jurisdiction because its only alleged connection to the forum is operating a globally accessible platform, which it contends cannot satisfy purposeful availment under *Walden v. Fiore* and *ALS Scan*. On the merits, Kick invokes Section 230 immunity, characterizing itself as a passive host of streamer content and analogizing its paid promotional contracts to a platform hosting user reviews. It further contends that the RICO counts fail because no predicate act — wire fraud, money laundering, or illegal gambling — is specifically tied to Kick's own conduct, and that the VCPA claims fail because Kick is not a "supplier," had no consumer transaction with plaintiffs, and is lumped together with other defendants without the specificity Rule 9(b) requires. Kick seeks dismissal of all claims with prejudice.

Kick's motion presents one of the clearest judicial tests yet of whether a streaming platform that pays celebrities to advertise a specific third-party service crosses from passive host into co-developer of commercial deception — a question that would strip Section 230 immunity under the *Roommates.com* material-contribution framework but remains unresolved in the Fourth Circuit. The personal jurisdiction argument also raises an unsettled question about how *Walden*'s defendant-focused purposeful-availment analysis applies when a platform's commercial targeting of U.S. consumers is executed through third-party human agents rather than the platform's own direct contacts. If a court finds the passive-host analogy inapt on these facts, this case could become a vehicle for the Fourth Circuit to address paid promotional contracting as a Section 230 immunity disqualifier — a development with significant consequences for influencer-driven marketing across major streaming platforms.