By: Andrés Rakower
On the internet, the word “streaming” means the act of receiving and watching a video from an online source, allowing the user to watch media beyond what they have access to on their device. The most commonplace example is a service like Netflix, where users can watch streamed movies and TV shows, and as a recent addition, play streamed video games. However, “streaming” is not limited to scripted content. It also refers to receiving live-video feeds from content creators who might play a video game, watch a TV show, or simply hang out, while providing commentary for the audience over the web.
An Amazon-subsidiary, Twitch.com, or Twitch, is among the unquestionable streaming giants in the nascent live-streaming industry, boasting an average of 105 million monthly users on their promotional website. As part of a new and niche slice of the entertainment market, one of Twitch’s main competitors, Kick.com, only reached their one millionth user in February 2023, which is a fraction of Twitch’s 140 million active users at that time. Notably, Twitch has existed as a service since October 2006, while Kick was founded in 2022. As a result of Twitch’s much longer existence, there are many more content creators (and therefore viewers) on Twitch than many of its competitors.
However, Twitch has faced growing criticism since mid-October, when former Twitch streamers amplified accusations that Twitch employed a double standard in relation to its political content creators. The original controversy surrounded the 14-day suspension of a popular creator for arguing that people of Middle Eastern origin belonged to an “inferior culture,” which sparked outrage. Specifically, Twitch members raised questions regarding why Twitch did not take a similar stance toward other streamers who had made similar arguments about the cultural inferiority of Tibetans prior to Tibet’s annexation into China.
In the midst of that debate, it came to light that Twitch had geo-blocked new user registrations from Israel since October 13, 2023. Geo-blocking refers to the restricting or blocking of access to online sources based on the user’s geographic identification. For over a year, users who attempted to sign up for a new account from an Israeli IP connection would be met with a message reading “blocked country IP,” and would not be allowed to register for a Twitch account.
On October 21, 2024, Twitch made a public response in which it argued that the reason behind the blocking of new account registrations was “to prevent uploads of graphic material related to the [October 7, 2023] attack and to protect the safety of users.” Twitch argued that its “signups were not disabled” as “users could choose to sign up with phone verification,” but Israeli users reported issues signing up using their phone numbers as well. Twitch claimed its strategy would be temporary “but was mistakenly extended until we were made aware of the error this week.”
Twitch claims it suspended new account registration in October of last year to prevent violent and upsetting combat footage from making its way to their streaming platform, especially in light of their younger demographic. However, the notable exclusion of every other active warzone, namely the lack of geo-blocking for new account registrations from Ukraine or Russia, Yemen, or Sudan, etc. require us to ask further questions before accepting Twitch’s version of events. Additionally, is there a reason why Twitch did not make an announcement originally in October 2023 in regard to their policy?
The early 2000s saw a transfer in the leading voices for boycotting Israel, from the Arab League Boycott to sectors of the Western public, particularly sectors of Western academia, who opposed the continued construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, alleged mistreatment of Palestinians, and other alleged violations of international law. As a result, in July 2005, the BDS National Committee, along with more than 170 Palestinian civil society groups, issued a “Call for BDS,” or “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions,” thus coining the term. BDS aims to impose non-violent pressure on Israel to force her to end the “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands,” recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties where they stood in 1948.
While federal legislation was passed in response to the Arab League Boycott’s proclaimed 1959 boycott of Israel in the form of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), there is no active federal anti-BDS legislation. While unresolved, it is highly unlikely that BDS activity would fall within the scope of the EAA. Therefore, the existing legal framework is a patchwork of at least 38 different state laws that seek to prohibit public entities from discriminating against Israel either in the form of public investments, or in the form of public contracts. The investment focused approach seeks to prohibit public investment entities, such as state pension funds, from refraining from investing in entities because of its ties to Israel, or from investing in entities that discriminate against Israel. On the other hand, the contract focused approach precludes public entities from conducting business with entities that discriminate in regard to business in Israel. The first approach requires that states publish a list of entities from which the funds must divest, while the second approach requires companies in the bidding process to certify that they will not boycott Israel for the duration of the contract. Many states, such as Florida, have both versions of the statutes in their books.
Not all anti-BDS legislation is created equally, with important differences affecting the geographic scope and the targeted activities that can impact companies. Some states included language to cover the ‘Divestment’ and ‘Sanctions’ of BDS, while most states only focused on the ‘Boycott,’ and some legislation encompassed a larger scope than others through their definition of “Israel,” particularly as related to the applicability of boycotts of businesses in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.
Amazon, Twitch’s parent company, is headquartered in the state of Washington. This state is one of the few that does not have anti-BDS state laws, but that does not preclude Amazon from facing consequences in other states where it does business and where it opens itself up for investment.
Did Twitch expose Amazon to liability under state anti-BDS legislation? Taking a look at Florida’s anti-BDS legislation as a sample point, it seems that there is a real possibility that Twitch exposed its parent company. Florida state laws prohibit a company from bidding or renewing a contract with an agency or local government entity for goods or services if the company is engaged in a boycott of Israel. Boycott of Israel is defined as “refusing to deal, terminating business activities, or taking other actions to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.” Since Washington has not passed anti-BDS statutes, Washington is not expected to halt Amazon from bidding on government contracts or naming it as an illegal investment for state funds any time soon. Alternatively, other states, like Florida, are enabled to take such actions by their state legislatures, namely pulling government pension funds from investing in Amazon, and preventing Amazon from bidding for new contracts with the state.
In its article covering the situation, The Jerusalem Post points to a Twitch user named Forceee, who wrote on Twitter in May, 2024 that he had “been streaming for the past three years and ha[d] transferred [his] viewers from YouTube to Twitch two years ago. [He] discovered around a month ago that A LOT of [his] longtime viewers have not been able to sign up to Twitch because they’re located in Israel, which is insane.” When combined with reports that Israelis had been reaching out to Twitch support for longer than a year, only for their requests to be quickly denied and their support tickets closed, a reasonable reader can only be left with one sensible reading of this situation – that Twitch’s discrimination of Israeli users was no accident at all, and in doing so Amazon was likely exposed to the risk of adverse action under state anti-BDS laws in at least 38 U.S. states.
