Skip to content
Sign in
Artwork for LegalEagle
Society & Culture

LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Ever wondered how the law works? Real life lawyer, Devin Stone, is on a mission to explain the most important legal issues of the day . . . and also ruin your favorite legal TV shows. From the courthouse to Night Court, LegalEagle will break it all down and teach you how to think like a lawyer.

Play
Open in
  • 25 episodes
  • Avg 26 min
  • English

Episodes 25

NewestOldestLongest
All5Unplayed5In progress0Played0
Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.
  • July 19 · 23 min

    Roblox Child Labor Lawsuit: Kids Paid in Robux Scrip

    A Roblox studio head told a reporter the company might be exploiting child labor, then argued it was actually a gift to the kids. That quote now sits in the middle of a federal lawsuit. In May 2026, the mother of a 13-year-old boy in Georgia sued Roblox Corporation in the Northern District of California, claiming the roughly $40 billion platform runs on the unpaid labor of children. Her son, the complaint says, registered at age eight with no parental consent and no age check, then spent years doing game design, testing, and advanced Lua scripting for adult-led DevEx teams, more than 40 hours a week, paid nothing. Roblox pays its creators in Robux, a currency it prints, prices, and controls. A player buys 1,000 Robux for about $13; a developer who earns that same 1,000 can cash out around $3.80, and only after clearing an age-13 minimum, a 30,000-Robux threshold, tax paperwork, and Roblox's sole discretion. Kids under 13 can earn Robux but can't cash out at all. The complaint calls that company scrip, the pay-in-tokens scheme the Fair Labor Standards Act outlawed in 1938. We break down every piece of the case: the FLSA child-labor and minimum-wage claims, California Labor Code Section 212's ban on paying wages in scrip, the unjust enrichment and negligence counts, the constructive-trust fight over the perpetual license Roblox takes on creators' work (AI training included), why a minor can disaffirm the arbitration clause under JR v. Electronic Arts, and the Rule 23 class-certification battle ahead. Roblox says these kids are hobbyists having fun. Its own studio head kept calling it a job. CHAPTERS (00:00) The studio head's quiet part (02:20) What Roblox actually is (03:41) The lawsuit, in brief (04:24) Teaching kids to code (05:08) DevEx: when play became work (05:47) The Talent Hub job board (06:28) Paying developers in Robux (07:34) Company scrip and the FLSA (09:22) The Robux exchange rate (10:29) Who actually cashes out (13:06) Inside the complaint (15:20) Unjust enrichment and AI (16:37) What the case is worth (17:52) Certifying the class (19:26) The arbitration problem (21:58) EagleTeam Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

  • July 16 · 21 min

    Graham Platner Rape Allegation: What Due Process and Evidence Really Mean

    The Democratic Party is scrambling to replace its Senate candidate in Maine after Graham Platner suspended his campaign over a rape allegation. Months earlier, Congressman Eric Swalwell went from gubernatorial frontrunner to resigning from Congress in about a week. Two high-profile Democrats, two sets of serious sexual-misconduct allegations, and the same online split every time: one camp says it's disqualifying, the other reaches for "due process," "guilt by accusation," and "there's no evidence." Most of the second group uses lawyer-sounding language and gets it wrong. So this episode explains how evidence actually works. We cover Platner himself: the prep-school background, the oyster-farmer-veteran image that won the primary, the Totenkopf tattoo, the Reddit posts, and the July 2026 Politico report in which a former girlfriend alleges he raped her in 2021, an account she says she disclosed to a therapist and friends at the time. Platner calls it categorically untrue. We lay out the Swalwell allegations too: four women, a former staffer, and reporting that found corroboration for key parts of each account. Then the law. "Evidence" isn't just DNA and bloody knives; testimony is evidence, and often the most important kind. We break down direct versus circumstantial evidence, admissibility versus weight, why most hearsay comes into court, and why character evidence usually stays out. "He said, she said" doesn't mean there's no evidence; it means the central evidence is competing testimony, and a single witness's testimony can sustain a conviction. We get into what "corroboration" really requires (independent facts that make an account more credible, not a second eyewitness), and the biggest sleight of hand in the debate: mixing up a criminal prosecution with the public deciding who deserves their vote. Due process limits the government's power to jail you. It was never a rule that citizens must withhold judgment until a trial that, for most sexual assaults, never comes. Presumption of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Sixth Amendment, Brady v. Maryland, the Roy Moore precedent, and why "not guilty" has never meant "innocent." It's all here. CHAPTERS (00:00) Two Democrats, two allegations (00:50) The two camps online (01:51) Who is Graham Platner (02:41) Tattoo, Reddit, and the primary (03:18) The allegations against both (03:57) Pundits invoke due process (05:16) What counts as evidence (05:58) Direct vs. circumstantial (06:53) Admissibility vs. weight (08:14) Hearsay and character evidence (09:31) He said, she said (10:16) Stacking evidentiary pebbles (12:48) Due process, explained (14:03) Online debate isn't a mob (14:39) Corroboration in both cases (17:25) Court vs. a hiring decision (18:22) Use your own judgment (19:04) EagleTeam Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

  • July 13 · 32 min

    Elon Musk Threatens to Sue Ro Khanna Over USAID Deaths Claim

    Elon Musk spent a weekend "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," his words, and 83% of the agency's programs were gone within weeks. Now Congressman Ro Khanna says Musk should answer for what came next, and Musk wants to sue him for saying it. Khanna and Musk were once friendly enough that Musk blurbed Khanna's first book. Then Musk took a chainsaw to the federal government, froze foreign aid, and laid off 94% of USAID's staff. When Khanna went on the "I've Had It" podcast and said Musk's cuts could contribute to 4.5 million child deaths by 2030, Musk called it "time to sue this liar," branded him "Ro the robber," and accused him of insider trading. We break down whether that lawsuit goes anywhere: where Musk could even file, the anti-SLAPP laws in California and D.C., California's slander statute, and why Khanna's hedged "possibly" plus a peer-reviewed Lancet study likely make this protected opinion. Because Musk is a public figure, the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan applies, which makes falsity and malice nearly impossible to prove. Plus the DOGE and USAID litigation we've tracked, Nicholas Kristof's reporting on children who died after the cuts, and Musk's "we accidentally canceled Ebola prevention" clip. Real attorneys, real filings, one very online billionaire. (00:00) Don't say Elon killed kids (00:52) What this fight is about (01:44) Elon and Ro Khanna's history (02:36) Feeding USAID to the wood chipper (04:27) Time to sue this liar (05:00) How Trump and DOGE cut aid (05:41) The AIDS Coalition lawsuit (06:43) Recklessness as a legal standard (07:46) The scale: 83% of programs cut (08:52) Musk demands a show orphan (09:50) Kristof's receipts: dead kids (11:00) The constitutional claims (13:04) What the courts ruled (13:54) GAO findings and the ICA (15:00) Is the money flowing now (16:20) Doe v. Musk and Elon's role (17:14) The deadly consequences (18:53) The Lancet study explained (20:20) Could Elon win a lawsuit (22:20) Anti-SLAPP and slander law (25:10) Actual malice and Sullivan (28:00) The Ebola mistake (28:53) The fraud claim doesn't add up (30:08) Sponsor: The EagleTeam Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Everything here is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

  • July 11 · 28 min

    Reckless Ben vs. Bricks & Minifigs: The Lego TRO Goes Federal

    Reckless Ben is finally headed to federal court, and he's agreed to mediate with Bricks & Minifigs. But if you think the ex parte TRO that ordered him to delete his Lego videos is dead, you're reading the tea leaves wrong. Here's the story. In November 2023, Brian Mansell consigned his father Ed's Star Wars Lego collection to a Bricks & Minifigs store in Salem, Oregon. When the operators left the country and corporate repossessed the store, the collection vanished. YouTuber Reckless Ben Schneider investigated and traveled to Utah to confront the people involved. On May 21, 2026, he published "I Tracked Down the Thief Who Stole $200,000 of Lego," branding the chain a thief and accusing police of helping cover it up. Bricks & Minifigs sued, throwing everything at the wall: trespass, stalking, impersonation, harassment, even a civil RICO claim casting Ben as a real-life Tony Soprano. The same day, a Utah judge signed an ex parte restraining order, no bond required, forbidding Ben from posting anything false, misleading, harassing, or defamatory about the company and ordering his videos pulled from every platform. We break down why the order was riddled with First Amendment problems: Paragraph J is a textbook prior restraint, Paragraph K orders videos deleted before any finding they were defamatory, and a 1,000-yard exclusion zone (more than half a mile) wraps every store and employee home in the country. Along the way: Near v. Minnesota, the Pentagon Papers, Keefe, Balboa Island v. Lemon, and Utah's anti-SLAPP law. Then the turn. Once both sides hired real lawyers, they jointly asked the court to swap the TRO for a much narrower injunction: no prior restraints, a 100-yard buffer, and an express carve-out protecting Ben's journalism, criticism, and commentary. The judge rejected the joint motion on a technicality, so the original, broader order is still in force. Days later, Ben removed the case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction. And here's the misconception worth killing: removal does not dissolve the TRO. Under 28 U.S.C. 1450, state-court orders survive removal until a federal judge changes them. But under Rule 65(b) and Granny Goose, the TRO can simply expire, and no federal judge is likely to reinstate anything this broad. We also meet the new magistrate judge, Cecilia Romero. CHAPTERS (00:00) The TRO twist, explained (01:42) Who is who: BAM vs Reckless Ben (02:40) The lawsuit and RICO claim (03:20) What an ex parte TRO is (04:31) Paragraph J: prior restraint (08:20) Paragraph K: taking videos down (10:20) The other TRO provisions (16:01) Why anti-SLAPP laws exist (16:41) The turn: parties renegotiate (18:01) Judge rejects the joint deal (19:01) What mediation really means (21:21) Removal to federal court (23:21) Why the TRO is not dead yet (24:41) New judge, and what is next (26:26) When you need a lawyer Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

  • July 10 · 26 min

    The Supreme Court Almost Killed Birthright Citizenship

    A US World Cup star almost couldn't play for his own country over a fight about four words in the Constitution. Folarin Balogun was born in the States by accident — his mother's flight home to London got grounded by her own pregnancy — and the guarantee that makes him American just survived the Supreme Court by one vote. That's Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice John Roberts closed it out 5-4: birthright citizenship means what the 14th Amendment says — anyone born in the US, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen. The Reconstruction Congress wrote it that way on purpose, to put the guarantee beyond the reach of any future Congress, president, or Court. It still took a year to get here. Trump's day-one executive order tried to end birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ducked the question in Trump v. Casa, ruling on nationwide injunctions instead while Sotomayor dissented from the bench. Within hours, New Hampshire families filed a class action; a judge blocked the order again, citing Wong Kim Ark v. United States (1898). The DOJ appealed once more for the merits — that became Trump v. Barbara. Roberts traces jus soli through Dred Scott, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Reconstruction Amendments, landing on: citizenship "was the right to have rights." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurrence goes further, rebutting Clarence Thomas's 90-plus-page dissent and reclaiming the 14th Amendment as a universalist promise, not one written only for freed Black Americans. Kavanaugh ducks the constitutional question on a technicality (why some outlets called this 6-3, not 5-4). Gorsuch tags along with Thomas. Alito calls the plain text a "medieval rule," then warns about birth tourism and statelessness — claims this episode checks against the record. Birthright citizenship survives, but 5-4 isn't a mandate. Vance is already telling Fox News one Court vacancy could undo it. Elie Mystal calls this the new Roe-style litmus test for judicial nominees. And Amy Coney Barrett is a self-professed fan of Bari Weiss's Free Press — which tells you where these "new" theories keep coming from. CHAPTERS (00:00) The Verdict: 5-4 for Citizenship (00:57) Meet an Accidental American (01:52) Why Wasn't This Unanimous? (03:24) The New Hampshire Case (04:25) How Delay Fed Bad Theories (06:50) The Citizenship Clause, Plain (07:27) Roberts's Spotty Record (08:02) Inside Roberts's Majority Opinion (11:29) Kavanaugh's Statutory Dodge (13:45) Gorsuch's Dissent (14:23) Alito's Medieval Rule (17:02) Thomas vs. Justice Jackson (17:59) Vance, Mystal and the Next Fight (19:57) Jackson's Concurrence in Full (24:50) A Word From EagleTeam Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Showing 21–25 of 25 episodes