The entire “Cease and Desist All Harassment” letter (hereinafter “letter”) drafted by TwitchAlerts/Vulcun has clearly not been drafted by an attorney due to the structure and the odd claims made therein.  That said, the initial question that needs to be addressed is whether there is any justiciable claim against Athene.

As Vulcun, the owner of TwitchAlerts is incorporated in the State of Delaware and based in California, if Vulcun were to file suit it would most likely do so in the United States of America.  As such this brief letter will review the likelihood based upon a generic review of common law in America (as each State has a somewhat different interpretation of the law it would be unfeasible to perform an analysis for all 50 States).

The major allegation is one of “engaging in making false and slanderous claims”.  In essence what is being alleged is engaging in what under the common law is defamation.  To prove defamation Vulcun would have to show:  1) a defamatory statement 2) published (posted online, printed etc.) to someone other than Vulcun.  A defamatory statement is a statement that any ordinary person would find damaging to their reputation and character.  Here the allegations are that Athene made statements that:
TwitchAlerts did not notify its customers about charging fees in the past;
TwitchAlerts charges a 30% fee;
Blaming TwitchAlerts for viewbotting, when all our evidence shows that you yourself are engaged in viewbotting
While it is likely that an ordinary person may find that their reputation or character would be damaged by the above, the truth is a defense to defamation.  Based upon my cursory understanding of the facts there is truth behind every one of the above statements:
no formal notice before charging 1% to TwitchAlerts users,
30% fee on gold used in TwitchAlerts
Circumstances surrounding Athene’s viewbotting were murky at best and tend to indicate involvement by Vulcun based upon the fact that streamers on Gaming for Good were viewbotted and then inundated with advertisements for TwitchAlerts
As such, in as much as the aforementioned is true it is unlikely that Vulcun would prevail on a defamation suit.

The letter then goes on to state various other allegations that were either allegedly committed by Athene, staff or people acting under Athene’s direction.  The majority of these claims are based on defamation, and again as above, the truth is a defense to such claims.  In as much as Vulcun alleges that Athene is liable for the actions of others, so called vicarious liability – holding a person liable for the acts or omission of another – there must be some kind of principle-agent relationship (i.e. employer-employee, parent-child) for any such liability to rest on Athene.  In as much as Athene does not have a principle-agent relationship, which it appears from the facts that he does not, Athene has no liability for any of the aforementioned allegations.

Finally, the last allegation was made in the Skype call by the TwitchAlerts CEO that acts perpetrated by Athene are in violation of the terms and conditions of Twitch and TwitchAlerts.  Even assuming arguendo that Athene did violate the terms and conditions of Twitch and TwitchAlerts, unless the alleged act committed was an act that violates a criminal law or civil statute, not just a mere violation of terms and conditions, the worst that could occur would be that Athene may be prohibited from using those services.

Additionally, the CEO of TwitchAlerts states that actions taken by Athene and those allegedly instructed by Athene - the placing of Gaming for Good ads in TwitchAlerts streams violated the CAN-SPAM act (15 U.S. Code § 7701 et seq.) (hereinafter “the Act”).  A quick review of the Act clearly indicates that it applies to a “commercial electronic mail message”.  Section 7702 (2) of the act defines a commercial electronic mail message as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose)”.  Section 7702 (6) states [t]he term “electronic mail message” means a message sent to a unique electronic mail address.”  Thus the Act strictly applies to commercial messages sent to a unique electronic mail address (commonly referred to as an e-mail address).  Proceeding under the assumption that TwitchAlerts functions using the Twitch engine in which messages sent during a stream chat session are not directly sent to a TwitchAlerts user’s e-mail address the Act would be wholly inapplicable.  Thus, as a much as Athene did not send commercial messages to unique e-mail addresses the Act would not apply and Athene would not be liable.

In summary, based upon the contents of the letter, the facts and the Skype call present very little litigation risk for Athene.  While it is possible that Vulcun could bring suit and result in driving litigation costs for Athene the likelihood that they would prevail on the merits is slim.

Please be aware that this is just courtesy opinion for Athene and that no attorney-client relationship has been created by virtue of this letter.