Asmongold Files Motion to Dismiss Mizkif Defamation Lawsuit Over "Own Words" Defence

Zack "Asmongold" Hoyt has requested a Texas district court dismiss defamation claims brought against him by fellow streamer Matthew "Mizkif" Rinaudo. Filed on 5th February, the motion argues Mizkif's lawsuit centres on commentary about the plaintiff's own public statements.

The legal defence team claims Mizkif failed to establish actionable defamation. Their argument? You cannot sue someone for repeating your own words.

The Defence Strategy

Asmongold's motion, submitted to the US District Court for the Western District of Texas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), takes a direct approach. The filing states Mizkif is suing over commentary made in response to his own public statements whilst omitting that crucial context from his complaint.

"Mizkif, nevertheless, will not give the Court any of that context in a pleading, or it would be obvious that nothing he is upset about is actionable as a defamation claim," the motion reads.

The defence highlights specific admissions Mizkif made during public streams. These include statements about punching holes in walls, slamming doors in aggression, and taking steroids that caused "insane anger issues." Another quote pulled from Mizkif's own broadcasts: "I said that 'if she goes after me, then I will go nuclear.' And that is exactly what I said. And that is what is going to happen."

Texas law doesn't permit defamation claims when you're merely echoing someone's self-admitted behaviour. "By definition, Mizkif cannot sue Hoyt for defamation for simply repeating and agreeing with some of Mizkif's own statements," Asmongold's legal team argues.

Missing the Mark on Specificity

Asmongold's lawyers further contend the original complaint lacks the necessary detail. The lawsuit allegedly fails to identify actionable statements with sufficient precision, omitting complete quotes, sources, or the publications supposedly containing defamatory remarks.

Without this information, the court cannot properly evaluate the claims in their full context.

The motion also characterises Asmongold's statements as constitutionally protected opinions rather than verifiable facts. Opinion and fair reporting based on publicly available information enjoy First Amendment protection.

Public Figure Standards

Both streamers qualify as public figures. This designation raises the legal bar significantly.

Mizkif must prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence. He needs to demonstrate Asmongold either knew the statements were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. The defence maintains this standard cannot be met when the statements relied on Mizkif's own public admissions.

Asmongold's filing requests the court dismiss the defamation claim with prejudice. Alternatively, they ask the court to require Mizkif to replead with more specific claims.

Background of the Legal Battle

The lawsuit stems from allegations made during an October 2025 livestream. Emily "Emiru" Schunk accused Mizkif of psychological abuse, stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault. She stated the two were in a relationship until early 2025.

Mizkif responded to the allegations the same day, admitting to being controlling and having intense arguments whilst denying the most serious accusations.

OTK quickly sided with Emiru, confirming Mizkif's contract had been terminated "some time ago" for unrelated reasons. The organisation reclaimed over one million company shares from him.

Asmongold commented on the situation during his streams, calling Mizkif "the aggressor and abuser" in broadcasts that accumulated millions of views. One YouTube video alone garnered 1.9 million views where Asmongold suggested Mizkif should be in jail, adding "at least allegedly" before clarifying he only included that caveat "for legal reasons."

Mizkif filed his lawsuit on 3rd November 2025, naming multiple defendants: Emiru, Asmongold, OTK Media, Mythic Talent Management, and King Gaming Labs. The case pursues claims for defamation, breach of contract, and seeks damages for reputational harm, lost earnings, and emotional distress.

The lawsuit alleges OTK and affiliated companies owe Mizkif over £680,000 in fees and wrongfully terminated contracts without proper investigation.

What Happens Next

The court has not yet ruled on Asmongold's motion. The case remains active.

Mizkif's legal team will likely file a response to the dismissal motion. They must either demonstrate the complaint meets legal standards or potentially amend their filing to address the defence's concerns.

Several corporate defendants have already moved to compel arbitration, which remains pending. Those proceedings could shift portions of the dispute outside the courtroom entirely.

The motion addresses only the defamation claims against Asmongold personally. Separate claims against Emiru and the various companies continue on independent tracks. Neither Emiru nor the corporate defendants have publicly filed responses as of this writing.

Legal observers note the defence strategy follows a standard playbook for defamation cases involving public commentary. Proving defamation becomes exceptionally difficult when the plaintiff's own statements form the basis of the allegedly harmful commentary.

The outcome could establish precedents for how content creators approach covering allegations made by fellow streamers. A finding for Asmongold might encourage more cautious approaches when discussing controversies. Conversely, a ruling favouring Mizkif could heighten legal exposure for streamers who comment on serious allegations.

Following Emiru's initial stream, additional women have accused Mizkif of sexual harassment, abuse, and running smear campaigns. These separate allegations exist outside the current legal proceedings.

Mizkif has since transitioned from Twitch to Kick, where he continues streaming. Asmongold departed OTK in early 2025 to pursue more politics-focused content, though he remains active across multiple platforms.

The legal battle highlights the growing intersection between streaming culture and formal legal accountability. What once might have been resolved through community discourse now plays out in federal courtrooms with substantial financial stakes.

The court's eventual decision will shape how the streaming industry handles public disputes moving forwards.