On the night of August 17, 2025, influencer Raphaël Graven, also known as “Jean Pormanove” on the Kickstarter platform, died during a live stream. The unusual circumstances of his death sparked considerable outrage, highlighting the difficult question of who was responsible.
While the exact conditions and causes of his death will only be known at a later date, it is already possible to investigate who is or are responsible for this tragedy. In this context, lawyer Chomiac de Sas answered questions from Quentin Le Van in an article published in full on August 19 on the LaCroix website.
Content publishers: the responsibility of co-influencers
The “Jean Pormanove” channel, hosted on the Kick platform, had over half a million subscribers and featured content showcasing several influencers: “Naturo,” “Safine,” and “Coudoux.” Revenue generated by the channel was paid to the Nice-based company “LeLokal,” wholly owned by the influencer Owen “Naruto” Cenazandotti.
The Kick channel’s distinguishing feature was its content depicting insults, mistreatment, and humiliation, generally centered around the influencers “Jean Pormanove” and “Coudoux,” both portrayed as physically and emotionally fragile.
A criminal investigation launched by the Nice public prosecutor’s office has so far brought three charges: “public incitement, via electronic means of communication, to hatred or violence against a person or group of people because of their disability,” “aggravated assault against vulnerable individuals resulting in a total work incapacity of less than eight days,” and “dissemination of recordings of images relating to the commission of offenses involving intentional harm to a person’s physical integrity.”
The influencers involved are awaiting the progress of the investigation, contesting both their knowledge of Raphael Graven’s health condition and any lack of consent to the abuse he suffered.
Kick: The negligent content host
The chain of responsibility also points to the platform that originally broadcast the content: Kick.
Founded in 2022, Kick is an audiovisual streaming platform owned by an Australian company. Competing with Twitch (Amazon), the platform has distinguished itself with a compensation system very favorable to content creators and a particularly permissive moderation policy. Furthermore, the Kick platform is directly linked to a major online betting and gambling platform, Stake, also created by the same founders.
Following the death of Jean Pormanove, authorities are questioning Kick’s status as a hosting provider, which allows it to be exempt from responsibility for the content it uploads. Indeed, the promotion of their channel, despite numerous reports to ARCOM and the Pharos platform, and the lack of a legal representative in Europe for the platform may constitute serious breaches of content moderation and the protection of individuals.
On August 26, 2025, the Paris prosecutor’s office opened an investigation against Kick for “organized supply of an illegal online platform” and for knowingly allowing the dissemination of videos of intentional attacks on the integrity of a person.
Arcom & the Minister for Digital Affairs: what about the public authorities?
Critics of those responsible for the case have also turned to public authorities, particularly Arcom – the French audiovisual and digital communications regulatory authority.
Arcom has been criticized for its failure to take action against the Kick platform, despite numerous warnings and reports from advocacy groups. Arcom does indeed have a range of tools at its disposal for regulating online content, including injunctions, fines, and legal action to suspend accounts or websites, delist content, and so on.
However, the legal and territorial scope of its jurisdiction, given the platform’s international status, limits its prerogatives and powers of action, as evidenced by the absence of a legal representative for Kick within the European Union – a legal requirement.
The Minister Delegate for Digital Affairs, Clara Chappaz, also spoke out against the Kick platform, citing breaches of the obligations of hosting providers as set out in the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy.
Subscribers and viewers: ultimately and primarily responsible?
The responsibility of regular or occasional viewers and consumers of the channel’s content—several thousand per broadcast—is also a major issue.
The courts may investigate the role of subscribers who, through their subscriptions and donations, finance the broadcasting of content whose creation may constitute one or more criminal offenses. The concept of complicity under Article 121-7 of the Penal Code is strictly interpreted, limiting criminal liability, but nevertheless raises the question of civil, or at least moral, responsibility.
Similarly, ordinary viewers who knowingly benefit from the proceeds of a crime or offense fall under the criminal offense of receiving stolen goods, punishable under Article 321-1 of the Penal Code. While their prosecution is rare in practice, the courts have recognized that simply viewing illegal content can theoretically constitute receiving stolen goods, particularly if the internet user knows that the content is being broadcast without authorization or is inherently illegal.
One point, constantly raised since the beginning of this case, remains: were the violence and abuse depicted on screen real or (partially) simulated?
These societal questions have been addressed in other sectors where the conditions for creating widely distributed audiovisual content could be achieved illegally, particularly in the pornography industry. Our article.
