For a second day in a row Jose “Chille” DeCastro filed an amended complaint to update one of his many lawsuits, this time for his recently filed lawsuit against Kate Peter, Josh “Accountability for All” Abrams and Dale “Lackluster” Hiller.
DeCastro originally had petitioned to update the complaint on an emergency basis as he said he had made a typo in listing the date of the YouTube livestream at the heart of DeCastro’s claims. He had listed the date as June 1, 2022, when he claimed that it actually happened on June 10, 2022, which put the revised date event within the three-year statute of limitations to file the lawsuit as he had filed the lawsuit on June 6, 2025.
The diminutive YouTuber’s emergency order was granted on June 11, 2025, by District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, who reminded DeCastro that since he had not actually served anyone as of yet, he could amend the complaint without permission as long as he provided service of the amended complaint and not the original complaint when he filed.
Taking advantage of this ruling, DeCastro significantly revised his complaint to include new charges against the trio. The previous complaint had listed two claims for relief with simple defamation and a false light complaints. The new amended complaint has expanded to include defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, republication of defamation and costs and fees.
New to the complaint is the fact that DeCastro is now claiming that a June 18, 2025, broadcast by Abrams resulted in the demonstrative loss of 407 subscribers to DeCastro’s main channel. According to DeCastro, this fulfills his need to show that Abrams’ actions have financially hurt him
We could not independently confirm this number, as DeCastro has over 100,000 subscribers to his main Delete LawZ channel and YouTube reports growth (or loss) in groups of 1,000 subscribers for channels above this threshold.
This was the only example presented by DeCastro of demonstrable damage caused by the actions of any of the defendants in the case. According to Playbill’s publicly available analytics report, DeCastro has gained roughly 2,000 subscribers since the reported loss of subscribers on June 18.
DeCastro’s version of events continues to claim the trio colluded to cause damage to his reputation and his business and continued to collude in order to rebroadcast the supposed untruths in an attempt to further damage his reputation.
The bulk of DeCastro’s accusations center around defendant Abrams. He says that Abrams called him a “vexatious litigant” and was a “legend in his own fucking mind,” accused him of buying YouTube subscribers, engaging in blackmail and extortion, committed battery on a woman (Defendant Peter) in public, has multiple unnamed victims and is involved in multiple court cases, and once threatened to report Abrams to his parole officer unless Abrams removed a specific video from his YouTube channel.
DeCastro alleges that defendant Hiller “endorsed or affirmed” accusations by Abrams and personally alleged that DeCastro threatened to choke the wife of a content creator, attempted to show up at Hiller’s house uninvited, is generally dangerous and that there were victims of crimes committed by DeCastro in ongoing court cases.
Defendant Kate Peter is alleged to have accused DeCastro of running Ponzi schemes, securing investment under fraudulent pretenses, having a pattern of fraudulent business activities, and blackmailing and extorting other content creators.
DeCastro also has changed his own description of himself to fit a lower standard of defamation. Despite previously describing himself to his audience as a well-known first amendment activist, future candidate for governor or mayor and the most well known first amendment auditor in the field, DeCastro now characterizes himself as a relative unknown entity who was harmed by larger YouTube channels.
He wrote, “Plaintiff is a private figure, not a public figure or public official. Plaintiff has never held elected office, declared candidacy for any political position, raised campaign funds, or engaged in the political process beyond ordinary civic participation. Plaintiffs content creation activities focus on constitutional education and civil rights advocacy, which do not constitute the type of public prominence that would render him a public figure under applicable First Amendment jurisprudence. Therefore, Plaintiff need only prove negligence, not actual malice, regarding Defendants’ fault in publishing the defamatory statements.”
While DeCastro had under 100,000 subscribers at the time of the incident, he currently has over 650,000 subscribers and has launched a public campaign to reach one million subscribers. Only Hillers’ 1.5 million subscriber base surpasses DeCastro, with Peter at 38,000 subscribers and Abrams at 242,000 subscribers.
DeCastro goes on to claim that the defendants caused significant financial and reputational harm through their statements. He wrote, “As a direct result of Defendants’ defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered: a. Reputational harm and loss of professional credibility; b. Decreased viewership and subscriber engagement on digital platforms; c. Loss of potential business opportunities and collaborations; d. Emotional distress, anxiety, and Fear of Future losses; e. Costs associated with attempting to mitigate the reputational damage, including platform moderation and counter-messaging efforts; f. A verified drop of 402 subscribers occurred on Plaintiffs YouTube channel between June 17 and June 20, 2025 (see Exhibit 3, YouTube analytics screenshots ), following the June 18, 2025 broadcast by Defendant Abrams in which he falsely accused Plaintiff of fraudulently purchasing subscribers. This visible public loss in support directly correlates with reputational harm, diminished credibility, and economic damage tied to reduced audience engagement and monetization.”
DeCastro is still seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and reasonable costs as DeCastro now claims to have hired a paralegal to help support his litigation efforts. Also of note, DeCastro has eliminated his previous reimbursement demand at $400 an hour claim for pro se work on the lawsuit.
This is a developing news story.
DeCastro vs. Hiller – 10 – Amended Comlaint DeCastro vs. Hiller – 10-1 – Declaration of Jose DeCastro
Plaintiff is a private figure, not a public figure or public official.
errr, i know that he does not know, that all his previous filings are in the public domain…. as such they can be used against him in this matter. He is now saying two opposite things. Seems convient of him to change his story from court to court…
While DeCastro had under 100,000 subscribers at the time of the incident, he currently has over 650,000 subscribers
Hmmm… kinda hard to prove damages there. And since he was buying a thousand followers a day, either he will admit that and then try to show a loss or the mere loss of 400 with a gain of 1000 is normal YT subscription.
loss of professional credibility;
He never had any. We all knew he was a joke going way back! Does he not know… oh wait, I answered my own question. He does not know he has to prove that in court, not merely assert it. Unlike above and his being a public person, they need not prove it, they merely need to show HIM saying it and they are done with evidence.
This is not an ongoing story but more of a soap opera complete with over the top villains and plots to rule the world. Come to think of it, chilli does look like Pinky sadly not the Brain.