Squid Game: Lawsuit Challenge | Interview with a Contestant - squid-game.onl

Squid Game: Lawsuit Challenge | Interview with a Contestant

Views: 21389
Like: 1569
Dive into the legal drama surrounding Netflix’s newest show Squid Game: The Challenge! We sit down with Thomas Nguyen, a former contestant on the show, for an exclusive interview. Don’t miss this firsthand account shedding light on one of the most controversial reality shows.
#SquidGame #TheChallenge #LawsuitInterview #Netflix

Injured? ►

Research: Jacob F.
Script: Attorney Tom, Mason, and Connor
Editing, Sound, Graphics and Animation: @DirkTheEditor

Find Mason here:

Find Connor here:

Follow me on:
Join/ Ask Questions On My Subreddit ►
Spotify ►
Twitter ►
Instagram ►
TikTok ►
Facebook ►
AttorneyTom (main YouTube) ►
Attorney Tom & Associates (YouTube) ►
AttorneyTom Music (YouTube) ►


Personal Injury Attorney Tommy John Kherkher
Managing Partner of Attorney Tom & Associates (aka The Kherkher Law Firm PLLC)
Principal office is in Houston, Texas. Licensed in Texas & Louisiana (see below).

Primarily focused on representing individuals who have suffered catastrophic injuries and other high-stakes situations.

Fair Use: All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

I do not own the music or unoriginal underlying graphics in this video.

This content is the property of Attorney Tom, LLC. Anything stated on ANY form of media, either expressly or implied, is not legal advice, nor can Attorney Tom, LLC, Attorney Tommy John Kherkher, Attorney Tom & Associates, or any entity associated with Attorney Tommy John Kherkher give you legal advice. Unless otherwise stated in the specific video referenced Attorney Tom & Associates is not advertising the services and products it offers. This content, unless otherwise disclaimed, was not prepared to secure paid professional employment.

Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Nor is there intent to form a lawyer-client relationship when interacting with others on the internet and in social media outlets. Past performance talked about in any context is no guarantee of future results.

Full disclaimer located at


  1. @dirktheeditor you misspelled “waiver.”

  2. im a simple man, I see an attorney tom video I smash the god dman like button, hope you keep posting more!

  3. This guy sounds like Netflix is paying him to do this interview lol. He's in love with Netflix…

  4. so ok, lawsuit go outside, the squid game is about people compelled to play games, and you die if you lose. this is a pretend version of it. so when people agreed to "discomfort," i doubt they were imagining the "discomfort" would amount to early stages of hypothermia, injuries on set, and having to use condom lube on their lips because their lips were chapping in harsh weather conditions. they signed contracts, so i would be shocked out of my socks if "if it's bad, just leave!" is remotely reasonable.

    and then this guy gets on attorney tom, laughs, and says "git gud" fuckin rude lmao

    i haven't seen the show, is the footage of them between games just a bunch of grey people shivering and looking unhappy while this beefcake laughs and shines like the sun baby on teletubbies

  5. I know you've been busy Tom… But good to see more content from you lately

  6. As Britain has actual food quality standards, I'd say the reason this gentleman says the food was bad was because of the excessive GMO ruining his pallet.

    A good day to you, SIR!

  7. As Britain has actual food quality standards, I'd say the reason this gentleman says the food was bad was because of the excessive GMO ruining his pallet.

    A good day to you, SIR!

  8. This new format is really great. The serious law stuff clashes so hard with the awkward humor, but it just works somehow.

  9. This new format is really great. The serious law stuff clashes so hard with the awkward humor, but it just works somehow.

  10. This guy sounds like Netflix is paying him to do this interview lol. He's in love with Netflix…

  11. A few thoughts.

    I dont really like the new format. The jokes are pretty cringe a lot of the time and it just hurts the legal analysis as you mix jokes and other peoples unprofesional takes into a video about looking at the viablitly of the lawsuit.

    Also i felt like this guest just sucked. What did he really add besides "uhhh well you could quit". He actively admits they didnt have any chapstick on a cold event. They didnt have any gloves when staninding outside in the cold for hours. No face coverings.

    I would personally call this pretty bad. Especially since the producers knew they needed thermal clothing for most of the body but chose to leave funerable areas exposed.

    Also this guy isnt a good guest from the fact he didnt know why condoms were provided. Reality gameshows are responsible for plently of children and sex isnt uncommon.

  12. Im loving the new way you're making these

  13. Honestly it's kinda crazy that the game show based on a TV show (in which people are murdered for a chance to win money) has now reached a point where it's actually hurting people so they can have a chance of winning money…

    But honestly I don't think that the contestants just knowing about the actual TV show the game show is based on makes them expect those situations, the TV show is very obviously a fictional work that would never (legally) be brought into the real world and the contestants new they were entering a real and legal game show and therefore wouldn't expect the same punishments or harsh conditions as the actual TV show had.

    I also think there is a large difference between any assumed "comfortability" (or lack thereof) and actual physical bodily harm from things like frostbite (which can be permanent) seem like way more than a reasonable person would expect from a TV show. This wasn't an outcome of the actual game which could be guessed ahead of time, this was a secondary unexpected situation that no player would have reasonably expected to have happen while they signed whatever waiver they signed – the game was to stand still for possibly hours, not to get frostbite.

    I also think the whole idea of "called medic meant you were kicked off the game" is insane, $4.6 million is a lot of money and it's reasonable to assume (from the creators of the show/Netflix's point of view) that people would do things and would persist even in situations where they are physically being hurt or damaged – which honestly is imo a big part of the argument against the show's creators, that the shows conditions weren't safe enough and that it was being made into a part of the show by affecting who would win. An actual point of the game show is that people will do things they know will be uncomfortable for money.

    The guest saying that "people couldn't sue for a marathon" actually imo strengthens the arguments against Netflix. People don't sue for a marathon not because the actual conditions aren't bad, but because they know what they're getting into – the contestants in this game show weren't complaining because they had to "stand still for hours" because that was the expected idea for the game show, they were complaining because of the unexpected conditions that could cause permanent damage to a person.

    Dunno why I wrote so much…

  14. I’m dying from the multiple camera angles. Hahaha 😂

  15. format was much better than the last one, the one interjected joke at the beginning was weird but that was it.

  16. They would have to look into UK laws since it was filmed here. We do have health and safety laws but whether or not they apply in these circumstances they're going to need to consult a solicitor

  17. Tom probably would have joined in order to befriend the other participants and set up a class action 😆

  18. These 2 dudes are hilarious I love this new format lol

  19. I don't think most contestants thought red light green light was going to last for hours. I don't know if they do have a case or not but there is no reasonable explanation as to why they had to stand there for hours.

  20. The guy’s talking about how it was totally fine, but then calls it a “suffer-fest” and talks about having to use condoms as chapstick. Doesn’t seem to match up very well.

  21. Obviously, not knowing the specifics in the liability waiver kind of hinders a thorough legal analysis, however I recall Tom previously explaining that even a liability waiver isnt bullet proof – that even if something is technically covered in a liability waiver, that doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

    From that angle, I'd be curious on an analysis of what would, wouldn't, likely hold up in court – assuming the waiver covered the complaints in the lawsuit? At what point does a basic expectation of care over take what could be mentioned in a liability waiver?

    I think this video could have gone more into these topics, and help educate us viewers more on liability waivers in general (and what is and isn't potentially actionable).

  22. Tom I just finished my Torts final exam. What grade do I need to get for you to hire me

  23. I didn't even know this was a thing. I honestly thought you'd be doing some kind of hypothetical thing about everything to do with the series.

  24. I'm so confused by the lip chap thing. How is it so many people had such dry lips? I've lived my entire life with cold, dry, Canadian prairie winters and I've never seen so many people in one room losing it over not having lip chap.

  25. Tom would have also won any challenge in which punting a toddler was required. Mucho experiencio

  26. As a marching band member, I can confirm that these people were treated poorly. As a PA doing a 12 hour night in the winter, these people were treated poorly and have every right to be mad. I, too, would want compensation.

  27. I don't know if there are any legal grounds for this, but it seems this is more of a disingenuous issue. In the tv series, there's little-to-no physical discomfort except from playing in the games, and the playtime of each game did not last hours. So if this show is supposed to replicate the tv series in real life, I would think it's reasonable if the contestants did not prepare for any discomfort coming from outside of the games and did not expect each game would take hours. Also if these people took time out of their lives to take a chance at getting a life-changing amount of money, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people were hesitant of asking for medical assistance knowing they would get kicked out or infuriated they had to quit because of elements completely unrelated to the show.

  28. I do think that in absence of real serious damages, having signed off on it in the first place, yeah getting and winning a case isn't very likely. But one thing I do want to address, the common sentiment seems to be that they could leave at any time so it was not Netflix's liability. I believe that if serious damage had occurred, it still would've be Netflix's responsibility to prevent that, at least in part.

    Let's examine the idea that it's fine because they could leave at any time very frankly. Even if this show had caused lost fingers, or if it had actually been to the death, some people would be willing to stick it out for the money, it is a life changing amount of money. Obviously you couldn't make a legal argument that that would be okay, the coercion of that much money is in large part the point of the original show, that was one of the main moral lessons from the early episodes.

    So I see this as the wrong thing to look at in the situation. Whether or not they could leave isn't the smoking gun in whether or not there would be liability, only the fact that it did not turn out that way can be, depending on UK laws on the subject. A willingness to let a bad thing happen to you does not suddenly remove netflix from the situation and its consequences either way. Though again since I haven't heard of actual damages beyond what would be covered in the papers they signed, I'm not saying they would or should win this.

  29. Survivor is a similar show where you have to endure 30 days and you do not have soap and deodorant. The prize is also only 1 million. I guess since survivor only has 18 contests your odds of winning are better but still 39 days is a lot longer than 7 days

  30. Don't join a competition based on a movie where people play kids games and DIE if they lose. (I watched the series and the rl gameshow and I loved every minute of both.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.