Streamate Lawsuit: Performer Wage Claims in NJ, FL, and CT

The Streamate lawsuit is actually three parallel wage-and-hour cases in federal courts in New Jersey, Florida, and Connecticut, each alleging that the adult webcam platform’s operators — ICF Technology, Inc. and its parent Accretive Technology Group, Inc. — misclassified performers as independent contractors and failed to pay them minimum wage. All three cases have been certified as class or collective actions, and in May 2026 a New Jersey federal judge ruled that Streamate performers are employees under state law, a first-of-its-kind decision built on a new “virtual footprint” theory of what counts as a company’s place of business.¹

What Performers Are Claiming

Streamate splits performer time into “free chat” and “paid chat.” Free chat draws viewers but pays nothing on its own; performers earn during free chat only if a viewer sends a “Gold” tip, buys a Gold Menu item, or purchases uploaded content. Gold is Streamate’s virtual currency, pegged one-to-one with the U.S. dollar. In paid chat, viewers pay per minute or a flat rate and performers get a cut of the revenue.²

That cut is roughly 35% of Gold transactions, with Streamate keeping about 65%. The Performer Agreement says performers may negotiate the percentage, but court filings indicate no performer in the record has ever received more than 35%.³ Performers also buy their own computers, webcams, internet service, costumes, and props, with no reimbursement.⁴

Every performer signs a Performer Agreement that labels them an independent contractor and says they “shall not be deemed or treated as an employee of Streamate for any purpose.” The lawsuits argue the contractual label does not match the reality: Streamate reviews and pre-approves content, monitors livestreams in real time, enforces a Performer Code of Conduct, and can suspend or terminate accounts for violations.² On that theory, performers are employees entitled to minimum wage, lawful wages free of improper deductions, and reimbursement for business expenses.⁵

The New Jersey Case and the “Virtual Footprint” Ruling

Mia Tomasello, a performer in Jersey City, filed the first case on July 13, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc. (No. 2:23-cv-03759) was assigned to Judge Madeline Cox Arleo and brought claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.⁵

The court conditionally certified an FLSA collective of New Jersey performers on August 8, 2024, and 11 performers opted in.⁴ On April 23, 2025, Judge Arleo certified a broader Rule 23 class of about 281 New Jersey performers for the state-law claims, running from August 6, 2019, through entry of judgment.⁶

The pivotal decision came on May 29, 2026, when Judge Arleo ruled on summary judgment and split the two tracks. Under the FLSA, applying the Third Circuit’s six-factor “economic reality” test, she held the performers are independent contractors. The opinion emphasized that performers set their own schedules and prices, buy their own equipment, and have what the court called the “absolute right” to stream simultaneously on competing platforms and use their screen names elsewhere. Taken together, the court found they operate as “independent economic entities in business for themselves.”⁴

Under New Jersey law, the court applied the stricter ABC test, which requires the company to prove all three prongs to defeat employee status. The court accepted Prong A (freedom from control) but held that ICF and Accretive failed Prong B. That prong asks whether the work is outside the company’s usual course of business or performed outside all of its places of business. The court rejected the argument that Streamate is merely a technology company, finding its “entire business model is dependent on the continuous generation of web-based adult content.”⁴

Then the court broke new ground. It held that a company’s place of business “extends to any proprietary digital infrastructure that serves as the primary commercial venue for the company’s operations,” and that performers who log on are “effectively performing their services within the virtual footprint of the enterprise.” Having found Prong B unsatisfied, the court did not reach Prong C and ruled the performers are employees under New Jersey wage law.⁴ No appeals had been filed in the New Jersey case as of mid-2026.⁷

The Florida Case

Jennifer Mondello, a Tampa-based performer, filed Mondello v. ICF Technology, Inc. (No. 8:24-cv-1037-SPF) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 30, 2024, raising parallel claims under the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.⁸

On January 16, 2025, Judge Sean P. Flynn conditionally certified an FLSA collective, with plaintiffs’ counsel estimating 1,218 potential members in Florida.⁹ After the opt-in window, 81 performers joined. The court later certified a Rule 23 class under the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Florida Constitution covering performers who worked in Florida from April 30, 2019, through entry of judgment, a group estimated at roughly 1,903 people. The court rejected the defendants’ bid to use arbitration clauses to defeat certification, noting they had not identified which performers were bound or produced executed copies of the agreements.⁸

The Connecticut Case

Shana Nizeul, a performer in Dayville, Connecticut, filed Nizeul v. ICF Technology, Inc. (No. 3:24-cv-1393) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.² On March 18, 2026, Judge Michael P. Shea granted class certification covering Connecticut performers who worked for the defendants from August 29, 2021, through entry of judgment.¹⁰

What Streamate Is Arguing

ICF Technology and Accretive Technology Group have not moved to dismiss and are instead contesting the cases on the merits.⁷ Their core position is that performers are properly classified as independent contractors because they set their own schedules, choose their own rates and content, and can broadcast on competing platforms at the same time. The companies characterize their “Developing Your Style” guides as non-mandatory suggestions rather than employer directives.⁶

The defendants have also pointed to mandatory arbitration provisions in some versions of the Performer Agreement. Courts in all three states have so far declined to let that argument block certification, largely because the defendants have not produced signed agreements or identified which specific performers are bound.⁶

Where Things Stand

All three cases remain in active litigation as of mid-2026. Discovery is ongoing in New Jersey,⁴ no trial dates have been set in any jurisdiction, and no settlement has been publicly disclosed. The combined certified classes across the three states potentially cover well over 2,000 performers.

The reach of the New Jersey ruling is narrow in one direction and wide in another. Narrow, because it only addresses New Jersey performers and does not change the federal FLSA result in that same case. Wide, because the “virtual footprint” reasoning, if it holds on any future appeal, could make Prong B of New Jersey’s ABC test nearly impossible for platform-based businesses to satisfy, pushing them toward employee classification under state wage law regardless of the federal outcome. Performers in states other than New Jersey, Florida, and Connecticut are not covered by any of these certified classes; whether similar claims succeed elsewhere will depend on each state’s own classification test.

1
Bloomberg Law. Streamate Adult Performers Found Employees Under New Jersey Law
2
CaseMine. Nizeul v. ICF Technology, Inc.
3
Red Bank Legal. Tomasello Order Granting Class Certification
4
GovInfo. Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 23-3759
5
Red Bank Legal. Tomasello Class Action Complaint
6
Justia Law. Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc. et al.
7
CourtListener. Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc.
8
Red Bank Legal. Mondello Order Granting Class Certification
9
Red Bank Legal. Mondello Conditional Certification Order
10
Law360. Adult Webcam Performers Certified as Conn. Wage Class