Blueface isn’t the only one facing legal action over the alleged unauthorized livestream of Chrisean Rock’s professional boxing debut.

Kick is in the lawsuit too.

Sky Myles Promotions LLC and BLK Prime Boxing LLC filed a federal copyright lawsuit on September 24 in the Central District of California over the September 19 pay-per-view boxing event featuring Chrisean Rock against Ku’Shiyah Williams.

The case, Sky Myles Promotions LLC and BLK Prime Boxing LLC v. Jones et al., No. 2:26-cv-11081, names multiple defendants, including Blueface — whose legal name is Johnathan Porter — Cash Jones and Kick Streaming PTY LTD.

That last defendant significantly broadens the story.

The dispute isn’t simply about Blueface allegedly pointing his phone at a boxing match for a few minutes.

The plaintiffs contend that Blueface and Wack 100 used Blueface’s verified Kick channel to make substantial portions of a commercially licensed $29.99 pay-per-view broadcast available for free while allegedly encouraging viewers not to purchase the official presentation.

Published reporting on the complaint says the stream continued for more than an hour and allegedly attracted tens of thousands of viewers. (TMZ)

Now the people who controlled the commercial broadcast rights want damages.

And they’re taking the streaming platform to federal court along with the people they accuse of putting the fight online.

Chrisean’s Pro Debut Was Supposed to Be a Pay-Per-View Event

Chrisean Rock, fighting professionally as Chrisean Malone, made her professional boxing debut September 19 against Ku’Shiyah Williams in Baltimore.

Rock won by second-round TKO.

The fight represented an important transition for a celebrity whose public identity had largely been built through reality television, music, social media and her turbulent relationship with Blueface.

This time, there was an actual commercial boxing product surrounding her.

BLK Prime offered the event as a $29.99 pay-per-view.

That price is now central to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs’ business model depended on viewers paying for authorized access to the broadcast.

According to their allegations, Blueface’s Kick channel gave a large audience another option:

Don’t pay $29.99.

Watch here instead. (TMZ)

The Lawsuit Says This Wasn’t Just a Clip

That distinction could become one of the most important parts of the case.

Copyright disputes involving livestreamers frequently involve clips, reaction videos, highlights or brief portions of copyrighted programming.

The allegations here are considerably broader.

According to the complaint as described in published reports, Blueface and Wack 100 broadcast the fight through Blueface’s verified Kick account for more than an hour.

The plaintiffs allege tens of thousands of viewers accessed the unauthorized stream.

They further claim Blueface openly discussed what he was doing.

According to the complaint, Blueface allegedly told his viewers they didn’t need to purchase the official pay-per-view and could watch the fight through his stream instead. (TMZ)

That allegation is significant because the plaintiffs aren’t merely claiming that copyrighted footage accidentally appeared in the background of a livestream.

Their theory is that the defendants were providing an alternative to the product BLK Prime was simultaneously attempting to sell.

“They Told People Not to Pay”

Attorney Charles Lew has been particularly aggressive in describing the alleged conduct.

“In my entire career, I have never seen such a blatant and brazen disregard for copyright,” Lew said after the lawsuit became public.

His next point gets directly to the plaintiffs’ theory of damages.

“They didn’t just take our clients’ broadcast, they announced it live and told people not to pay.”

Lew said the plaintiffs intend to enforce their rights through the litigation. (TMZ)

Those remain allegations.

The defendants will have the opportunity to respond, and the filing of a complaint does not establish that any defendant is legally liable for copyright infringement.

But the alleged instruction to avoid buying the PPV could become an important factual issue if the litigation proceeds.

Kick Being Named Changes the Story

The involvement of Kick makes this more than another Blueface-Chrisean legal controversy.

Kick is a livestreaming platform built around creators broadcasting directly to large audiences.

Blueface has increasingly turned livestreaming into a major component of his public career and recently claimed he generated more than $136,000 during his highest-earning week on the platform.

That means Kick isn’t incidental to the story.

It’s the infrastructure through which the alleged infringement occurred.

The plaintiffs have gone beyond pursuing the people who allegedly showed the broadcast and named Kick Streaming PTY LTD as a defendant.

Exactly what liability the plaintiffs can ultimately establish against the platform is a separate legal question.

Platforms can have statutory protections in copyright disputes under certain circumstances, and merely operating the service on which a user commits alleged infringement does not automatically make a platform liable for everything that user does.

The factual details matter.

Among other issues, litigation involving an online service can turn on what the platform knew, when it knew it, what notices it received, what control it exercised and how it responded.

Those questions should not be answered before Kick files its response and the parties develop the record.

But the lawsuit ensures they are now part of the case.

Blueface’s Verified Channel Could Matter to the Narrative

The plaintiffs specifically identify the broadcast as occurring through Blueface’s verified Kick channel.

Verification itself does not establish copyright liability.

But it helps explain why the plaintiffs aren’t treating this as an anonymous pirate stream buried somewhere on the internet.

Blueface is a recognizable celebrity with an established following on the service.

His streaming career has become increasingly public.

And according to the complaint, a large audience was able to watch commercially protected boxing content through that account while the authorized rights holder was attempting to sell access to the same event.

The plaintiffs’ position is essentially that this wasn’t piracy happening somewhere in the shadows.

They allege it happened openly, through a major creator’s verified account, in front of a large audience.

Wack 100 Is Part of the Alleged Broadcast

The lawsuit also extends beyond Blueface.

Cash Jones, better known as Wack 100, is among the people identified in connection with the stream.

Wack has been closely connected to Blueface’s business and career for years and has himself become a prominent internet personality through podcasts, livestreams and social media.

According to the plaintiffs, Wack and Blueface appeared during the alleged unauthorized broadcast.

That gives the case another layer because the plaintiffs are portraying the stream as something more deliberate than a single person casually turning on a camera.

Again, that characterization is the plaintiffs’ allegation and will have to be tested against whatever defense the defendants present.

The Financial Dispute With Chrisean Is Part of the Allegations

The complaint reportedly goes even further.

The plaintiffs allege Blueface acknowledged that his decision to show the fight was connected to a financial dispute involving Chrisean.

The precise nature and relevance of that alleged dispute will matter if the case proceeds.

Blueface and Chrisean have one of the most complicated public relationships in entertainment.

They share a child.

They have spent years arguing publicly.

Their disputes have repeatedly spilled onto social media and reality television.

But copyright ownership doesn’t disappear because the people involved have a personal or financial dispute.

The central legal question will concern the rights to the boxing broadcast and whether those rights were infringed.

The personal history may help explain motive according to the plaintiffs’ theory, but it doesn’t independently establish liability.

The Alleged Audience Could Translate Into a Major Damages Fight

The plaintiffs are seeking damages tied to what they describe as lost sales, profits and other revenue.

No final damages amount has been established.

That is another place where careful reporting matters.

If tens of thousands of people watched Blueface’s stream, it doesn’t automatically follow that every one of those viewers would otherwise have paid $29.99 for the PPV.

A court can’t simply assume every free viewer equals one lost purchase without examining the evidence and applicable damages theories.

But the plaintiffs can argue that the alleged free broadcast competed directly with their paid product.

And the allegation that viewers were specifically told not to buy the PPV gives them a much sharper narrative.

Their product cost $29.99.

Blueface’s stream allegedly cost viewers nothing.

Both were allegedly available while the fight was happening.

That’s the commercial conflict at the center of the case. (Kicks and Grips)

This Could Become Bigger Than Blueface and Chrisean

The celebrity names will drive attention.

But the underlying dispute has implications beyond Blueface, Wack 100 and Chrisean Rock.

Livestreaming has transformed how celebrity content reaches audiences.

Creators can turn on a camera and instantly distribute video to thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — of people.

That power becomes complicated when the camera is pointed at something somebody else owns.

Sports broadcasting is particularly sensitive because live rights are the product.

A movie retains substantial value after its premiere.

A song can be streamed repeatedly for decades.

A live boxing match has a much narrower commercial window.

The largest value often exists while the fight is actually happening.

If viewers can watch an unauthorized feed at the same moment a rights holder is trying to sell a PPV, the alleged infringement isn’t merely reproducing old content.

It potentially competes with the live transaction itself.

That is why promoters have historically treated illegal fight streams so aggressively.

The Platform Question Could Be the Most Interesting Part

Blueface’s alleged conduct is relatively straightforward to understand.

The plaintiffs say he showed copyrighted material without permission and told viewers not to purchase the authorized feed.

Whether they can prove those allegations and establish liability will be determined through the legal process.

Kick presents a more complicated question.

What responsibility does a livestreaming platform have when a verified creator allegedly uses the service to rebroadcast a live commercial sporting event?

Did Kick know what was happening?

Did anybody notify the platform?

Was a takedown requested?

How quickly could the platform reasonably have acted?

Did the stream generate revenue on Kick?

What policies applied to Blueface’s account?

Were any enforcement actions taken?

Those are the kinds of factual questions that could become important as the case develops.

The mere fact that Kick has been sued does not mean the company will ultimately be held liable.

But it means those questions are no longer hypothetical.

They are part of an actual federal lawsuit.

Blueface Has Turned Streaming Into Serious Business

The timing is particularly interesting because Blueface has been publicly emphasizing how lucrative livestreaming has become for him.

He recently displayed figures he said showed a highest-earning week of approximately $136,000 on Kick.

He has also argued that he no longer needs other people to generate content because his personality and audience are enough to sustain his streaming business.

Now that same streaming operation sits at the center of a copyright lawsuit.

The very thing that has become one of Blueface’s most valuable post-prison revenue streams could also expose him to a significant legal fight.

Chrisean Won the Fight — Then the Fight Became a Lawsuit

Chrisean’s September 19 bout was supposed to mark a new chapter.

She defeated Ku’Shiyah Williams by second-round TKO in her professional boxing debut.

The victory immediately generated discussion about whether boxing could become a legitimate new lane for her career.

Less than a week later, the event has produced an entirely different headline.

The promoter and streaming provider behind the PPV are now in federal court.

Blueface is a defendant.

Wack 100 is involved in the allegations.

And Kick itself has been pulled into the litigation.

The plaintiffs’ argument is essentially that while they were attempting to establish Chrisean as a commercial boxing attraction, an unauthorized stream was simultaneously giving a massive audience access to the product for free.

Now the Court Will Have to Sort Out Who Is Responsible

The complaint is only the beginning.

The defendants will have opportunities to answer the allegations, challenge the plaintiffs’ legal theories and potentially dispute the claimed damages.

Kick, in particular, may have defenses that differ substantially from those available to the individuals accused of participating directly in the stream.

There has been no finding of liability.

There has been no damages award.

And allegations contained in the complaint remain allegations unless admitted or proven.

But one thing is already clear:

This isn’t simply a case of a boxing promoter threatening to sue Blueface because he showed Chrisean Rock’s fight.

The lawsuit has already been filed.

The alleged stream lasted more than an hour.

The plaintiffs say viewers were actively told not to buy their $29.99 broadcast.

And the federal case reaches beyond the celebrities who allegedly appeared on camera.

Kick itself is now part of the fight.