Having read this entire thread, I think one distinction is being repeatedly lost.
There are two separate events here:
- JaWoodle’s original publication using the build officially supplied through the creator programme.
- His later refusal to accept the precise editing and removal remedy demanded after he was told that the supplied build was incorrect.
People are entitled to criticise the second decision. You may believe he should have removed everything immediately to preserve the relationship. You may believe removing him from future creator events was justified.
What does not follow is that the first publication was therefore a knowing leak.
According to the correspondence JaWoodle presented, Behaviour acknowledged that there was ambiguity around build access and versioning, that he received a build labelled as 3.0, that he did not intentionally seek out the incorrect build, and that providing the incorrect build was their responsibility.
The release notes identifying the intended content reportedly arrived after his videos had already been filmed and finalised. His video went live at the stated embargo time, and he says he was only told after publication that the build was wrong.
Once notified, he did not simply ignore the problem. He pinned a correction, clarified the features were not part of the public release, repeated that clarification during streams, stopped additional publication and cancelled planned Instagram content. He refused the full remedy demanded of him and attempted to negotiate an alternative. You may regard that as inadequate, but it is not the same as refusing every form of cooperation.
The legal advice also did not begin because he decided to fight over a few hundred dollars in advertising revenue. He says a formal legal demand alleged an NDA breach and warned that further legal or platform action could follow. Once that occurred, obtaining legal advice was a normal response.
None of us has the complete NDA, creator-programme terms or legal correspondence. Therefore, categorical declarations that he unquestionably breached the NDA, that the copyright claims were unquestionably valid, or that he acted maliciously are not supported by the public evidence.
The reasonable criticism is:
“Once told, he should have removed or re-edited the material immediately.”
That is an opinion about courtesy, trust and commercial judgement.
The unreasonable claim is:
“He knowingly stole or leaked restricted material for clout and money.”
The evidence currently available does not establish that.
Likewise, there is no evidence that TFP deliberately set him up or that the entire incident was manufactured for publicity. Speculation does not become fact merely because it supports whichever side we already prefer.
The record is complicated enough without inventing motives for either party.
