Streamate Lawsuit: Latest New Jersey Wage and Misclassification Update

The Streamate lawsuit is a wage-and-hour class and collective action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against ICF Technology, Inc., the operator of the adult livestreaming site Streamate.com, and its affiliate Accretive Technology Group, Inc. The case is formally captioned Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-03759.

The lawsuit centers on how Streamate classifies and pays the performers who livestream on its platform. The named plaintiff, Mia Tomasello, alleges that performers were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, were not paid for time spent in Streamate’s unpaid “free chat” area, and had a portion of customer tips withheld under the platform’s revenue-share structure.

As of this update, no settlement has been reached and no payout has been approved. The case has moved through class certification and a partial summary judgment ruling, and parts of it remain in active litigation. This article explains what has been verified in the court record, distinguishes this case from a related lawsuit in Connecticut, and lays out what performers who may be part of the class should know.

What Is the Streamate Lawsuit?

The Streamate lawsuit is a hybrid wage case: it combines a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with a certified class action under New Jersey wage law. It was filed on July 13, 2023, and is being heard by U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

The dispute is not about the content on Streamate or the platform’s policies toward viewers. It is an employment and pay-practices case brought by a performer who says Streamate’s “independent contractor” label does not match how the company actually controls and compensates the people who stream on it.

It is worth noting that a separate, related case, Nizeul v. ICF Technology, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, raises similar misclassification claims on behalf of performers outside New Jersey. The New Jersey case discussed in this article covers performers who worked for Streamate specifically within New Jersey; readers searching for a nationwide or Connecticut-based version of the claim should not assume the two cases share the same class, timeline, or rulings.

Why Is Streamate Being Sued?

Misclassification as Independent Contractors

The core claim is that Streamate performers are economically dependent on the platform in ways that resemble an employment relationship, even though they sign “Performer Agreements” that label them independent contractors. New Jersey uses the “ABC test” to decide this question: a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the employer proves the worker is (A) free from control, (B) performing services outside the company’s usual course of business or outside its places of business, and (C) engaged in an independently established trade. Misclassification matters because employees, unlike independent contractors, are legally entitled to minimum wage and protection from improper pay deductions.

Unpaid Wages for Free Chat Time

Streamate performers interact with viewers in two modes: an unpaid “free chat” area, where viewers can watch without paying but may tip in the platform’s virtual currency (“Gold”), and a “paid chat” area, which is billed per minute or at a flat rate. The lawsuit alleges performers were compensated only for paid-chat time, not for the often-substantial hours spent in free chat.

Unlawful Wage Deductions and Tip Retention

The complaint also alleges that Streamate retains a share of Gold transactions, with performers receiving roughly 35 percent of the revenue from a given transaction, and that performers were not reimbursed for equipment they were required to purchase, such as webcams and computers. Plaintiffs argue this amounts to an unlawful deduction from wages under New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law if performers are, in fact, employees.

Who Is Named in the Lawsuit?

The named plaintiff is Mia Tomasello, a performer who lived in New Jersey and streamed on Streamate. The defendants are ICF Technology, Inc., the Washington-incorporated company that operates Streamate.com, and Accretive Technology Group, Inc., which owns more than 10 percent of ICF’s stock. Streamate has not issued a public statement responding to the allegations.

Is the Streamate Lawsuit a Class Action?

Yes, with a federal and a state component that are procedurally different:

• FLSA collective action: The court granted conditional certification of an opt-in FLSA collective on August 8, 2024. Workers had to affirmatively join this collective to participate, and the opt-in period has since closed with roughly 11 members.
• New Jersey Rule 23(b)(3) class action: On April 23, 2025, the court granted class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for a class of approximately 281 performers who worked for Streamate in New Jersey since August 6, 2019, and were classified as independent contractors. This is an opt-out class, meaning eligible performers are included automatically unless they chose to exclude themselves after receiving notice.

This procedural split matters for anyone trying to understand their status: FLSA participation required an opt-in that is now closed, while the New Jersey state-law class is broader and operates on an opt-out basis.

Streamate Lawsuit Latest Update

The most significant recent development is a partial summary judgment ruling issued on May 29, 2026. Judge Arleo ruled that Streamate performers are independent contractors under the FLSA’s federal “economic reality” test, but are employees under New Jersey’s stricter, three-pronged ABC test. The court found that Streamate could not satisfy Prong B of the ABC test because the platform itself functions as the company’s “place of business,” and performers who stream through it are not operating “outside of all places of business” of the enterprise.

This is a split decision, not a final judgment: it resolves the misclassification question in the plaintiffs’ favor under New Jersey law while resolving it in the defendants’ favor under federal law. It also arrived shortly after the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development finalized new ABC-test regulations, set to take effect October 1, 2026; the court noted those regulations do not govern this case but do not change its analysis. No trial date, settlement, or damages figure has been announced following this ruling.

What Are the Main Allegations?

Beyond the classification question itself, the certified class record includes several additional claims the court found could be proven with evidence common to the whole class, rather than case-by-case:

• Streamate tracks each performer’s total minutes online versus total paid minutes, which plaintiffs say can be used to calculate unpaid free-chat time across the class.
• Streamate’s revenue-share structure for Gold transactions, and its policy of not reimbursing performers for required equipment, are applied uniformly through standardized Performer Agreements.
• Several versions of the Performer Agreement contain mandatory arbitration clauses with class-action waivers, which could affect a subset of performers who signed those specific versions; the court has not yet fully resolved how this affects class membership.

Who May Qualify for the Lawsuit?

Based on the certified class definition in the court’s order, the New Jersey class consists of performers who, from August 6, 2019 through entry of judgment in the case, worked as Performers for ICF Technology and/or Accretive Technology Group in New Jersey and were classified as independent contractors under a Streamate Performer Agreement. Membership is not based on simply having watched or subscribed to Streamate as a customer; it applies specifically to people who performed on the platform under the stated conditions.

Because this is a certified Rule 23(b)(3) class, individuals meeting that definition are presumptively included unless they opted out after notice was issued. Anyone uncertain about their status should look for an actual class notice they received, rather than assume eligibility from this article alone.

How to Join the Lawsuit

There is no open enrollment process at this stage. The FLSA opt-in window has closed, and the New Jersey Rule 23 class operates on an opt-out basis, meaning eligible performers do not need to take action to be included and instead would have needed to exclude themselves by a deadline set in the class notice already distributed. Performers who believe they fall within the class period and never received notice should contact class counsel listed in the court record rather than search for a new sign-up portal, since none has been established publicly.

Is There an Official Claim Form?

No. Because no settlement has been reached, there is no court-approved settlement claim form for the Streamate lawsuit. Readers should be cautious of any website offering a Streamate lawsuit claim form, since this litigation has not reached the settlement stage where such forms are typically issued.

Has the Streamate Lawsuit Settlement Been Reached?

No settlement has been confirmed as of this update. The case is still in active litigation following the May 2026 partial summary judgment ruling on classification. No notice of settlement, proposed settlement agreement, or preliminary approval order has been filed in the docket. Any claim that a Streamate lawsuit settlement or payout has already been finalized should be treated as unverified unless it can be traced to a court filing or an official notice.

How Much Could Claimants Receive?

No payout amount has been established, and none can be responsibly estimated at this stage, since the case has not reached a damages determination, verdict, or settlement. If liability is ultimately established under New Jersey wage law, any recovery would likely be tied to factors the court has already flagged as provable on a class-wide basis: unpaid free-chat minutes compared against minimum wage, unreimbursed equipment costs, and the portion of Gold and tip revenue retained by Streamate. Until a settlement or judgment sets actual figures, dollar estimates circulating online are speculative.

Streamate Lawsuit Timeline

What Happens Next?

With the misclassification question for New Jersey wage-law claims now resolved against Streamate, the remaining issues, including the scope of unpaid wages, the legality of specific deductions, and the possible effect of arbitration clauses in some Performer Agreements, appear likely to proceed toward further motions, a damages phase, or settlement negotiations. The court has not announced a trial date or a settlement conference as of this writing. Readers should watch for a notice of settlement or a scheduling order in the docket rather than assume a specific timeline.

What Should Potentially Affected Performers Do?

• Locate and keep any Performer Agreement, suspension notices, or correspondence from Streamate, since the court has already found this type of record relevant to the case.
• Watch official docket updates rather than relying solely on secondary websites, since this litigation has moved quickly through certification and summary judgment stages.
• Confirm current contact information with class counsel if a change of address might cause a missed notice.
• Consult an employment or wage-and-hour attorney for guidance specific to an individual’s dates of work and location, particularly if there is uncertainty about whether a signed Performer Agreement included an arbitration clause.

For general background on how these claims work, see this overview of wage and hour class action lawsuits and this explainer on independent contractor misclassification claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Streamate lawsuit the same as the Connecticut Streamate case? No. The New Jersey case, Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc., covers performers who worked in New Jersey. A separate case, Nizeul v. ICF Technology, Inc., is pending in Connecticut federal court and involves a different proposed class.

Has Streamate been found guilty of anything? The court has ruled, on summary judgment, that performers meet the definition of employees under New Jersey’s ABC test for purposes of state wage claims. That is a legal classification ruling, not a final damages verdict or admission of wrongdoing, and the federal FLSA claim was resolved in Streamate’s favor.

Can I still join the lawsuit? The FLSA opt-in period is closed. The New Jersey class is an opt-out class, so eligible performers within the certified class period are generally included automatically unless they excluded themselves after notice.

Is there a Streamate lawsuit settlement yet? No settlement has been confirmed as of this update.

Where can I read the actual court documents? The class certification opinion is available through the U.S. Government Publishing Office, and the originally filed complaint is posted publicly by plaintiff’s counsel.

What does the May 2026 ruling mean in plain terms? It means performers lost their federal FLSA misclassification claim but won the New Jersey state-law version of the same question. A detailed breakdown of the ruling is available from employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, which represents management-side clients.

Conclusion

The Streamate lawsuit is an active, certified wage-and-hour case in New Jersey federal court, not a settled claim with payouts available. As of this update, performers have won a key legal ruling establishing employee status under New Jersey’s ABC test, but no settlement, claim form, or compensation amount has been confirmed. Anyone who performed for Streamate in New Jersey since August 2019 and believes they may be part of the certified class should review any notice already received and speak with a qualified wage-and-hour attorney about their specific situation rather than rely on unverified claims of an imminent payout.

Last update on: October 9, 2026