Nice Court Convicts Naruto and Safine for Abuse in Live Streams
A criminal court in Nice, France, handed down suspended prison sentences, fines and an unusual six-month “digital ban” to two streamers on Wednesday, concluding a case that shook the live-streaming world. Owen Cenazandotti, 27, known online as Naruto, was sentenced to two years suspended imprisonment and a €15,000 fine. Safine Hamadi, 24, known as Safine, received 18 months suspended and a €5,000 penalty.
The pair organised broadcasts on Twitch and later on the Kick platform—chosen for its looser moderation—that featured extreme humiliation and violence. Their content, often streamed on the “Le Lokal” channel, drew thousands of viewers and generated income from the spectacle. The trial followed the death of Jean Pormanove (legal name Raphaël Graven, 46), a fellow influencer who participated in those violent streams and died during one such broadcast in August 2025.
Investigations showed that Graven, a vulnerable person, was repeatedly subjected to abuse that was broadcast live. The French judiciary responded not only with custodial penalties but also with a “digital ban” barring the two from online activity for six months. The case has raised uncomfortable questions about how platforms profit from live violence and about the thin line between entertainment and criminal conduct.
What the Sentence Means for Live-Streaming and Platform Responsibility
Platforms Under Fire: Kick’s Lax Moderation Exposed
The choice of Kick as the primary broadcast venue was deliberate. Founded in 2022, Kick attracted creators with a more generous revenue split and rules perceived as far less restrictive than Twitch’s. The platform banned the streamers after Graven’s death, but only after a French investigative report had already flagged the violent content. The sentencing now fuels a broader regulatory conversation in France about whether live-streaming platforms can claim neutrality when extreme broadcasts are monetised in real time.
A New Deterrent? The Six-Month Digital Ban
Beyond the suspended sentences, the court’s imposition of a “digital ban” is a novel legal tool. It forbids the streamers from any online presence—social media, streaming, messaging—for six months, effectively a targeted prohibition on their digital lives. While its enforceability across borders remains unclear, it signals that French judges are willing to craft penalties that directly address the medium of the crime. For content creators, a criminal record plus a digital blackout could mean the end of a career built entirely on online visibility.
Who Carries the Long-Term Damage
The immediate losers are the convicted streamers, whose personal brands are destroyed. Kick faces reputation damage and possible stricter oversight in the European Union, which could raise its operating costs and drive away advertising. Twitch, though not directly involved in the trial, stands to benefit if stricter rules on rivals push streamers back toward its more moderated environment. French regulators, meanwhile, get a high-profile case that could accelerate legislation holding platforms criminally liable for real-time harm.
What Creators and Platforms Should Watch Now
- For content creators in France: The court’s willingness to impose a “digital ban” means online abuse can now carry a penalty that directly terminates a streaming career; legal advice on content boundaries is no longer optional.
- For live-streaming platforms: Expect heightened scrutiny from French and EU regulators. Kick’s experience shows that lax moderation can lead to criminal proceedings and may invite binding legislation that forces real-time content screening.
- For investors in streaming companies: Platforms with weaker content controls now carry a measurable legal and reputational risk in the European market. Competitors with stronger moderation systems may gain a defensive moat.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | Medium | Kick's association with criminal broadcasts risks deterring advertisers and users, especially in European markets where the case has received intense coverage. |
| Competitive Risk | Medium | If Kick faces tightened oversight, streamers may migrate back to Twitch or other platforms with clearer compliance structures, shifting market share. |
| Regulatory Risk | High | French authorities have directly questioned platforms' responsibility for live-streamed violence; the case could spur new laws imposing liability for user-generated harm. |
| Reputation Risk | High | The violent nature of the broadcasts and the streamers' criminal convictions have generated widespread public condemnation, branding Kick and the individuals involved as enablers of abuse. |
| Technology Disruption | Low | No new technology is at issue; the harm stemmed from existing live-streaming capabilities exploited with insufficient safeguards. |
| Commercial Opportunity | Low | The ruling primarily imposes costs and restrictions; any benefit would be indirect, such as a reputational uplift for platforms that have already invested in robust moderation. |
Comments 0