Overview of the Dalas Review Case and its Court Ruling
The Barcelona court issued a ruling demanding that Daniel Santomé, widely known as Dalas Review, pay 12,000 euros in damages to the father of his ex-partner. The decision also required Dalas Review to address threats to his dignity and public image. The verdict stated that the influencer insulted the father by labeling him malicious and a violent attacker. The punishment includes monetary compensation and measures affecting the YouTube channel, which has exceeded ten million followers. Dalas was ordered to remove nine videos containing insults toward the father and to publish up to four videos reading the conviction in a similar narrative and tone to the one used when making the insults.
Dalas Review began his online career over a decade ago, initially focusing on video game content. In recent years, the creator has drawn attention for clashes with other influencers, public debates, and reactions to third-party videos. International visibility came with participation in the launch of a video game called Fur Fun, which was later removed from the Steam platform due to quality concerns. During the legal process, allegations of sexual harassment by an underage follower surfaced; although a request for five years of prison was made, the court acquitted the individual involved because the prosecutor did not object to the acquittal, and the matter did not reach a prison sentence. The case highlights the tension between freedom of expression and protection of personal honor and image in online content.
On a personal level, the conflict extended to Dalas Review’s former partner, known online as Miare, and her project. A notable point in the dispute concerns the dog Argos, which both parties own. The court ordered Dalas Review to return the animal to Miare as part of the settlement. In the aftermath, a series of videos produced by Dalas Review directed at his ex-wife involved direct insults toward her father, contributing to the civil case that resulted in a year-long sentence and a 12,000 euro fine for defaming honor and image. The plaintiff was represented by attorney David Bravo in this matter.
Recent communications summarized the penalties: Dalas was found to have violated Miare’s father’s honor and public image. The court ordered three main actions: payment of 12,000 euros in damages, deletion of nine videos from the channel, and a requirement to publicly read the sentence on the main channel once a week for a month. The information about the ruling circulated widely via social media channels at the time of the announcement.
David Bravo, the attorney involved, provided the public summary of the judgment and its consequences, underscoring the seriousness of insulting or defaming an individual online when it harms personal reputation and the perception of a public figure’s conduct. The case illustrates how courts assess online speech against the protections of honor and public image, particularly when content reaches a broad and young audience that may be influenced by sensational narratives.
Sustained Legal Questions and Implications
The lawsuit filed by the father of the target influencer highlighted the scale of the dispute, with more than ten million followers on the Dalas Review channel. In the covered videos, the creator described the plaintiff in terms such as abuser and attacker, and portrayed his family in a highly negative light. The court emphasized that the matters at stake extend beyond a simple online feud and touch on the broader issue of social responsibility for content creators who wield substantial reach and influence. The judge noted that the ongoing conflict and the repetition of insults functioned as more than mere disagreement; they constituted reputational harm that could harm a person’s dignity and social standing.
The Barcelona court’s decision reflects a careful balance between freedom of expression and the protection of personal honor in digital media. The ruling acknowledges that a popular channel with a large following carries social relevance and a responsibility to avoid repeated, harmful statements about private individuals outside the realm of legitimate critique. The case thus serves as a reference point for future regulatory considerations about online content and the limits of expressive rights in the age of social networks.