- Jun 15, 2016
- Reaction score
- Channel Type
What are your thoughts on the situation ??
i suggest you watch this. your missing a ton of the factsI'm not familiar with either of them, only heard of Syndicate while watching Nanners' vids and haven't seen them play together in years. But if it's true that they were saying the videos were sponsored by said company, they're technically in the clear unless YouTube has other terms or the US has other laws that state they need to say the company is owned by them as well.
The way I see it (from what I've read); they've created videos showing people how they can use said site and win stuff, without disclosing that they own the site, so they actually took advantage of their fan base. I know some companies have done similar to this, primarily parent companies who have multiple subsidiaries, who might do an ad where they put down another product to make "their's" look better when it's really the same company. I don't think it's blown out of propportion, they gamed their fans and should pay for it.
I skimmed through it, there really isn't any other facts I needed other than them taking advantage of their fans, which is as I pretty much read in the article. But the fact they didn't disclose anything at all is even worse, I hope the FTC or whatever that American thing is, comes at them with full force taking into account Syndicate's previous run in with them.i suggest you watch this. your missing a ton of the facts