I was on social media the other day when a guy contacted me about his great new company idea: an Instagram for adults. He named his company fMeta and used a variation of the Meta logo as his own logo.

Yes, a super facepalm moment. I contacted him and suggested he invest a little money in speaking to a lawyer because it will save him a ton of money in the long run when Meta comes to sue his ass.

This kind of thing is quite common in our industry. A porn star once created her own line of clothes based on the Adidas logo, and Lexus sued one porn star for naming herself Lexus. And they won. She had to rename herself Lexi.

The sad truth is, as adult content creators, we are business owners, who are expected to know far more than we really do – not just how to create a product but market it (SEO, social media), website design and know the ins and outs of every law out there about our industry and products, and let’s not even forget all the tax stuff we are supposed to know as well.

It’s a lot and nearly impossible for one person to know everything. But that’s why it’s important we consult with experts in that field. It may cost you a few hundred dollars up front, but it could save you millions.

That’s the lesson this webcam company recently learned the hard way.

He is quick to blame Streamate, but honestly, who invests $500,000 and moves their entire family to a foreign country without speaking to a lawyer first? That’s crazy.

So please, if you never listen to anything else I have ever said, listen to this one thing …. always seek legal advice from a real attorney before doing anything this big!

I honestly thought everyone knew porn was illegal in Thailand. I mean, a quick Google search would have told them that, but hey, if nothing else, TALK TO A LAWYER.

Lawyers are experts in the law. One tiny little chat with a lawyer, which would have cost him a few hundred bucks, could have saved him so much time, money, and hassle.

So what story am I talking about? Well, buckle up because it’s a doozy.

A U.S. webcam studio operator who relocated his entire family and business to Bangkok is now suing the live-streaming platform Streamate, alleging the company’s guidance led him to invest $500,000 in a venture that was illegal from the moment it opened its doors.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, details how operator Michael Longchamp spent months planning the expansion of his webcam studio into Thailand—a country he believed was open for adult-content operations after receiving what he describes as implicit approval from Streamate.

According to the filing, internal emails referencing “BKK” for Bangkok, along with a list of prohibited territories that did not include Thailand, led Longchamp to conclude the country was a viable location for his new studio.

Yet he didn’t think actually to ask a lawyer?!! Seriously?!

He relocated his family to Bangkok, secured commercial space, hired staff, and made substantial investments in equipment. Within weeks of opening, Longchamp shuttered the studio after learning that Thailand’s Computer Crime Act and long-standing anti-pornography laws make the production of adult webcams illegal. According to the complaint, a third-party tip brought the operation to the attention of local authorities, prompting an immediate shutdown to avoid criminal charges.

Longchamp’s lawsuit centers on negligent misrepresentation, asserting that Streamate—described in the filing as a globally experienced platform familiar with regional adult-content restrictions—had a duty to warn him of the legal risks.

The complaint alleges that Streamate’s staff approved the Thai studio, continued communication about the location, and provided no indication that operating in Thailand would violate national law.

As a result, Longchamp claims he relied on Streamate’s guidance when making the decision to invest $500,000 in the new studio, relocate his family, and renew his long-term business plans in Southeast Asia. The complaint states that these losses were both foreseeable and preventable.

He is seeking at least $1.5 million in damages, including relocation costs, lost investment, and projected lost profits. Treble damages are also requested under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, which allows for enhanced penalties in cases involving deceptive commercial practices.

A key element of the complaint is the absence of any warning from Streamate about Thailand’s strict laws. While the company provided a list of restricted countries where adult webcam operations were prohibited, Thailand was not included. The lawsuit argues that this omission—combined with the platform’s internal approvals—created “a false sense of security” regarding legality.

No formal statement from Streamate appears in the complaint, and the company has not yet issued a public response. Historically, adult-content platforms have emphasized that operators are responsible for complying with local laws—an argument Streamate is widely expected to raise.

Thailand’s ban on pornography production has existed since 2007 and is well-known among regional businesses. Penalties under the Computer Crime Act can include fines or imprisonment. In news reports and commentary surrounding the case, industry professionals have described the situation as a costly lesson in due diligence, noting that a single consultation with an adult-industry attorney—typically costing less than an hour’s studio revenue—could have prevented the entire ordeal.

Critics pointed out that Longchamp’s reliance on a platform’s country list, rather than on legal counsel, may weaken his case. Courts often expect operators in high-risk sectors to verify local laws, especially when expanding internationally independently.

While the complaint outlines a clear timeline—from initial communication with Streamate to relocating the family and shutting down the Bangkok studio—the legal path ahead remains challenging.

Negligent misrepresentation claims require proving a duty of care, evidence of a misleading communication, and reasonable reliance. Streamate may argue it had no obligation to provide legal advice and that Longchamp acted unreasonably by investing heavily without verifying the legality of operating in Thailand.

The case, filed on November 12, 2025, is one of the latest to test liability boundaries between content platforms and the independent operators who depend on them. A preliminary hearing is expected in the coming months.

For now, Longchamp remains back in the United States, describing the Bangkok project as an operation “built on misplaced trust”—and a half-million-dollar reminder of the cost of skipping legal counsel in a tightly regulated industry.

You can view the full lawsuit docs here.

Seriously, for the love of all things holy, don’t ever invest any money in any business without first discussing it in detail with lawyers. That’s what they are for. They know the law.  They know shit that we regular folks might not ever think of.