Alyssa Mercante Exposes YouTubers’ Private Info in SmashJT Lawsuit!

It seems Alyssa Mercante disclosed highly personal and identifiable details about numerous well-known internet figures, yet in her legal case against SmashJT, she claimed to have suffered harm due to similar actions.

Towards the end of 2024, Alyssa Mercante, a former senior editor at Kotaku, brought a lawsuit against YouTube personality SmashJT in a court within the Eastern District of New York, specifically the United States District Court. With attorney Ron Coleman from the Coleman Law Firm representing him, SmashJT countered by submitting a request to discard the initial complaint. His reason was that the controversial statements were either shielded as satire, hyperbole, personal opinion, or lacked the necessary details to be considered defamation under the legal standards of New York and California.

Coleman additionally noted that the Mercante SmashJT lawsuit was initiated in New York. In his request to dismiss the case, he questioned the court’s ability to preside over it, asserting that since SmashJT, who lives in California and manages his platform from there, lacks significant connections to New York to justify jurisdiction. He emphasized that making content available online within the reach of New York does not equate to the purposeful actions towards the state needed for jurisdictional purposes as per the law.

Coleman’s argument also highlighted that statements like “she is terrible for money” – despite being harsh and inappropriate – were expressions of opinion rather than verifiable factual declarations. The defense suggested that Mercante had made similar jokes on social media, implying that Tarzia’s remarks fell under the category of free speech which is protected by law.

For transparency, it should be noted that in this legal case, YouTube personality SmashJT is being represented by Ron Coleman and the Coleman Law Firm. Similarly, Park Place, WDW Pro, and Valliant Renegade are also represented by Mr. Coleman when required.

Amended Complaint Filed

On April 18, 2025, Alyssa Mercante filed an updated version of her initial lawsuit against SmashJT in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This revised complaint, known as a First Amended Complaint (FAC), is significantly larger than the original one, increasing from 37 pages to 79 pages by adding more details and broadening its focus.

The FAC preserves the initial lawsuits such as defamation, emotional distress caused intentionally, interference with contracts, and harassment related to bias under New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n. However, it expands the number of supporting arguments, references, and evidence presented in order to strengthen the overall story of the harm claimed.

As a movie enthusiast, I’m delving deeper into this case, gathering more screenshots, crafting comments for YouTube videos, and uncovering what appears to be orchestrated bullying. Additionally, I’m working to strengthen our legal standing by providing evidence of ties between the defendant, Jeff Tarzia (also known as SmashJT), and platforms, web services, and associates based in New York.

In my perspective, two significant innovations have been incorporated into the revised lawsuit. These novel legal arguments, which weren’t previously presented in the initial submission, aim to bolster our case.

Prima Facie Tort: This is a less frequently used New York common law claim that offers a civil remedy for harm inflicted intentionally without any valid excuse or justification, even if the actions don’t fit neatly into a more conventional tort. In legal terms, it can be presented as an alternative theory of liability if the court determines that the specific actions do not qualify as defamation or another established cause of action. In actual court cases, New York judges seldom uphold prima facie tort claims when the alleged actions also fall under other recognized torts.

In simpler terms, the amended complaint refers to a case in Washington State – _Bungie, Inc. v. Comer_ – to propose an unprecedented legal claim concerning deliberate incitement of online harassment. The complaint acknowledges that “stochastic terror” is not yet considered a tort under New York law, but it encourages the court to create a new common law remedy to address the issue of content creators allegedly using subtle hints and language to incite targeted abuse from their followers. The plaintiff argues that Tarzia’s frequent mentions of the plaintiff’s name, image, and identity across various platforms were part of a calculated plan to provoke and outsource harassment.

Making these additional arguments in the case expands its legal grounds, but they also propose new ideas that could be subject to thorough examination by the court, especially during the motion to dismiss phase. The judge will assess if these proposed arguments for liability are legally valid or if they overlap or repeat existing claims based on more established legal principles.

Allegations Against SmashJT

In the court case FAC, Mercante claims that SmashJT conducted an extended and intensifying series of online bullying, primarily focusing on Mercante’s position as a senior editor at Kotaku and her support for the game consultancy firm Sweet Baby Inc., through his commentary.

As reported by the FAC, from March 2024 to March 2025, Tarzia produced at least 90 videos featuring Mercante as a main focus or significant mention. These videos collectively total over 150 hours of material, with many displaying Mercante’s name in their titles or her image on thumbnails. Through his YouTube channel and blog, Tarzia frequently talked about Mercante’s reporting, public comments, and connections to gaming scandals, notably the controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc.

The FAC claims that harassment against Mercante increased significantly after Tarzia published fresh content, even though it doesn’t blame him for inciting or coordinating such actions. It mentions the exposure of her personal details—supposedly on Kiwi Farms—as a result of the increased online focus. The complaint does not present any proof that Tarzia shared this information personally, but suggests a possible connection between his videos and the third-party revelations timing.

In the heart of the case against Tarzia, it’s argued that she made harmful, slanderous remarks, one being the accusation that Mercante was involved in activities deemed illegal under solicitation laws. The lawsuit maintains that this accusation is completely untrue and destructive, and despite being warned by Mercante’s legal team, Tarzia persisted in making or suggesting it. The lawsuit presents screenshots and references to specific videos where the plaintiff believes these remarks were either explicitly stated or heavily implied.

Regarding Tarzia, he consistently presents his work as a critique of the games journalism field and industry practices, frequently depicting Kotaku and Mercante as symbols of what he sees as biased coverage driven by activism. His advocates claim that a large part of his content is protected opinion, satire, or hyperbolic rhetoric, and they argue that he discourages direct harassment. Previously, Tarzia has publicly disclaimed any involvement in third-party threats or doxxing, and he asserts that his work represents lawful commentary.

Employment Timeline Discrepancy

The original complaint suggests Mercante was pushed out from Kotaku with her contract terminated early because of Tarzia’s behavior. However, the FAC provides a detailed sequence of events and uses stronger wording to assert that Tarzia was directly responsible for Mercante’s dismissal.

Contrary to my earlier assertions suggesting a voluntary departure, I found myself still employed with Mercante when the rounds of layoffs took place.

Dox Allegations & Release of YouTuber Private Information

The revised lawsuit restates the claim that SmashJT acted upon or endorsed the practice of sharing personal details, which refers to the distribution of confidential or identifiable data in a public forum.

The revised lawsuit adds more content producers, who aren’t named as defendants yet, but are said to be part of a wider online community that is claimed to be involved in the harassment campaign.

In Alyssa’s court documents during her lawsuit against @SmashJT, they exposed the personal information of every YouTuber they could find, possibly including @Rev_says_desu as well.
Why? These people have nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Here’s why: They wanted to dox, they wanted to put the info out in the public, and they wanted…
— Grummz (@Grummz) April 19, 2025

In this document, each person is referred to not only by their genuine names but also their internet aliases, as well as details about their residence locations.

This includes:

@ToastywiththeMosty
@RevSaysDesu
@8BitEric
@MontraDukes

Based on the complaint, it is stated that these creators often published content that resembled Tarzia’s style, topics, and timing, which is suspected to have increased negative focus on Mercante. The lawsuit doesn’t directly accuse these individuals of misconduct but suggests their reporting may have contributed to making the harassment situation more severe.

In the amended filing, there’s an extra individual brought up, the YouTuber often recognized as @RealHypnotic1. Although not officially named as a defendant, the document provides quite an uncommon level of detail to pinpoint Hypnotic’s whereabouts. It uses shipping labels from Amazon packages seen in his manga unboxing videos to suggest he lives in a particular location. The complaint suggests that this geographical connection bolsters jurisdictional claims against Tarzia, with whom Hypnotic has previously collaborated.

As I ponder over this situation, it’s hard not to notice the irony at play here. The revised document, revealing real names and general locations of these individuals (who aren’t even co-defendants), has sparked questions and allegations of hypocrisy. Yet, in the same breath, it argues that the sharing of similar identifiers like Mercante’s is illegal or harmful. It’s worth mentioning that in the original complaint, Mercante exposed SmashJT’s complete home address, while carefully redacting her own.

Legal Analysis and Challenges

Regardless of the significant growth in the revised lawsuit – growing from 40 pages initially to approximately 156 pages with around 380 sections – the case remains confronted with a number of legal obstacles that could be addressed in forthcoming motions. The updated submission includes extra details and proposes new legal arguments, but it’s uncertain if these additions will successfully surmount the procedural and substantial concerns raised in the defendant’s motion to throw out the case.

Defamation Standard:

Earlier in the case, lawyer Ron Coleman contended that several of Tarzia’s statements were shielded under the First Amendment, specifically those expressing opinions about a public figure’s work.

Under laws in both New York and California, for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must be provably false and made with malicious intent if the subject is a public figure. As Mercante was a former editor at a well-known media outlet and her public comments and social media activity are recognized, this could support Tarzia’s argument that his critique fell within the legal boundaries of commentary, parody, or satire.

In the grievance mentioned, several assertions could potentially be safeguarded, such as expressions featured in YouTube video titles and images, especially when viewed as exaggerated or overstated speech.

Prima Facie Tort Claim:

The revised lawsuit further asserts a claim related to a common law action known as prima facie tort, which is used in New York’s legal system to address harmful behavior that does not fit neatly into categories such as slander (defamation) or molestation (harassment).

In essence, historically, courts have only employed the prima facie tort claim in cases where no other applicable claim is available. Yet, in this specific situation, the plaintiff has already filed several tort claims such as defamation, intentional emotional distress infliction, and contract interference. This might make the prima facie tort claim unnecessary or repetitive.

This could serve as grounds for dismissal of that particular count.

“Stochastic Terror” Theory:

As a film enthusiast, I’d like to highlight an intriguing aspect of the revised lawsuit: the innovative addition of a claim for “stochastic terror.” This term refers to instigating targeted harassment through public discourse, even without explicit instructions to cause harm. The complaint provides a comprehensive account of this concept and cites a previous Washington State court judgment acknowledging it in a different case. However, it’s important to note that New York has yet to recognize this as a legitimate tort.

In an alternative argument, this complaint suggests that the case could be made under the principle of prima facie tort, if the court decides not to recognize “stochastic terror” as a separate claim. However, due to a lack of clear precedent in New York for this particular legal framework, it’s unclear whether the court will permit the claim to move forward.

Causation and Damages:

For the plaintiff, proving a clear cause-and-effect relationship between Tarzia’s content and the claimed damages such as job loss, reputation damage, and emotional distress will be a key hurdle. The lawsuit presents screenshots, quotes, and references to various social media and YouTube posts, but it frequently leans on indirect inferences and patterns instead of clear instructions or direct communications that directly tie Tarzia to specific threats or results.

In simpler terms, although the lawsuit claims that Mercante faced more threats following every SmashJT video, it’s important to remember that linking these occurrences as a direct cause and effect requires strong evidence. The court will carefully review whether the presented evidence is robust enough to go beyond simple inference and prove legal responsibility.

In essence, the revised lawsuit adds more details to the case, yet it’s uncertain if these additions address the issues raised in the initial motion to dismiss. The court is expected to consider a delicate balance: shielding individuals from organized harassment while preserving the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, especially when it comes to public figures and contentious discourse.

Conclusion

Following the filing of the updated Mercante lawsuit, it seems plausible that the lawyers representing SmashJT might counter with an enhanced motion to throw out the case.

As a movie enthusiast, I’d have contested the solidity of the initial allegations in the original petition, primarily based on First Amendment principles. I believed Tarzia’s statements fell under the umbrella of opinion, satire, or protected commentary, not actionable content. If I were to respond to an amended complaint, I might once more delve into the constitutional safeguards for online discourse and the practicality of additional claims like prima facie tort and stochastic harassment – two legal actions that are scarcely used or not explicitly recognized under New York law.

That Park Place will continue to monitor and report on developments in this case.

2025-04-21 22:58