I'm Getting Sued
Credibility score: 34/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "I'm Getting Sued" and rated it 34/100 for credibility (a BS score of 66/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-21. Its weakest claim — "Says he'll take liability, then reveals he edited out 'not'" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as volume game. 7 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 7 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 4 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
I'm the only one brave enough to keep the videos up — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:00
Frames every other creator as cowardly while leaving out that most actually settle because lawyers cost more than clicks 💀
Why this score: The speaker sets up a binary where the only two options are 'take them down like a coward' or 'keep them up like me.' He skips the part where most creators get advised by counsel that fighting a $5M suit from a network is financially suicidal, not a character flaw. The move makes compliance look like moral weakness instead of basic risk math.
Original quote: “I've officially been threatened that I can either take the videos down or TBS will sue me for $5 million. ... I will do whatever it takes to make sure the”
Mystery loophole that defeats TBS lawyers — confidence with zero details — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:34
Talks like the loophole is real and bulletproof — then immediately refuses to name it.
Why this score: Says he found an actual legal workaround that will keep the videos up 'forever' and that TBS lawyers are actively trying to steal it. The second any listener wants proof he pivots to secrecy. That's the move: big claim, instant blackout on evidence.
Original quote: “I found a loophole in the United States legal system and I'm going to use that loophole to keep the videos up forever. Can't actually tell you guys what the loophole is right now because I know that TBS's lawyers are listening.”
Secret legal loophole exists but can't reveal it — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:34
Claims ironclad loophole then immediately hides it — classic 'trust me, bro' with zero receipts 💀
Why this score: Announces a bulletproof legal trick then refuses to name it for security theater. The move turns the absence of evidence into supposed proof of its power. Without any actual statute, case, or mechanism shown, the certainty is pure performance.
Original quote: “I found a loophole in the United States legal system and I'm going to use that loophole to keep the videos up forever. Can't actually tell you guys what the loophole is right now because I know that TBS's lawyers are listening.”
Claiming a different result from doing the same thing twice. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:43
He just said doing the same thing twice is insanity, then claims a different result. That's not how that works, mortal. 💀
Why this score: The speaker sets up the 'definition of insanity' (doing the same thing and expecting different results) then immediately claims he did the same thing and got a different result. This contradicts his own premise, implying a false sense of cleverness or a misunderstanding of the initial statement.
Original quote: “This whole thing just shakes like
And guess what? It did have a different”
Says he'll take liability, then reveals he edited out 'not' — Volume Game (20/100)
At 2:52
Says it, flips the tape, then pretends the edited version counts as a contract. Bold.
Why this score: He drops the edited line, immediately cuts to the reveal that he removed the word 'not,' then acts like the raw clip still binds Blake. The trick is admitting the deception while still claiming the verbal contract exists.
Original quote: “I want to say I'm liable for any of this legally.”
Presents edited audio as a binding verbal contract — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 3:20
Edited audio isn't a contract. Courts don't enforce prank edits.
Why this score: He splices together a 'raw' clip from two different moments, one of which was already doctored, then calls it legally binding. That's not how verbal contracts work — intent and context both matter, and he's stripped both.
Original quote: “So you're taking the liability, right? Yeah, all the liability, yeah. And there it is. A raw, unedited clip of Blake saying he will take all of the liability.”
Declares the prank edit legally shields him from consequences — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 3:30
Says he's 'legally safe' off a doctored clip. That's not how any of this works.
Why this score: He treats a joke edit like it creates actual legal immunity. No court is going to honor a secretly altered recording as a contract, especially when the other party was clearly being pranked.
Original quote: “So that's a verbal contract, isn't it? Yes. Sick. We got rid of the liability, guys. I'm finally a free man.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →