But influencers and would-be commentators who frame their “story times” as exposés without any editorial oversight are finding themselves before the courts.
As platforms grow and livestreaming becomes lucrative, users chase engagement because engagement means money, gifts, subscriptions, and, in some cases, hourly payouts.
And one of the most reliable hooks is the messy, blow-by-blow retelling of relationship breakdowns where audiences eagerly choose sides.
In 2024, the High Court awarded $780,000 in damages to a woman after a user repeatedly posted defamatory comments about another person on a community Facebook page.
Livestreaming has added a new layer of risk: real‑time commentary, real‑time pile‑ons and streams that often disappear after the fact.
The latest example comes from the Family Court.
In a decision released earlier this year, a judge has ruled a man’s livestream behaviour amounted to ongoing psychological abuse, serious enough to meet the threshold for family violence.
The couple had a child together but the relationship ended when the man was caught having an affair.
He moved out, but, when his new relationship quickly deteriorated, he began trying to reconcile – texting the woman multiple times a day, relaying messages through their son, and turning up at the home outside agreed times to collect belongings.
On this occasion he also allegedly left a dead mouse in the garage.
Months after the separation, he began livestreaming three to seven times a week, sometimes for up to six hours.
His content centred on his online gambling until Internal Affairs warned him to stop engaging in offshore gambling.
Over time, he built an audience of around 700 followers, identified his ex‑partner by name and engaged with a core group of 20 viewers who regularly weighed in on his relationship with his ex.
“X wants a cut,” one wrote after the man won money online.
Another added “Teach her for being a nosy b****.”
The man also alleged his ex was secretly watching the streams, speculating about a particular viewer being her and threatened to share information about her with her new partner.
The most alarming comments came from his new partner, who called the woman a “psycho” and “a f***ing nutter” in a livestream.
Family members alerted the woman to the content and Netsafe issued a directive to the father to remove the harmful content.
Her lawyer followed up by sending a letter warning that if the behaviour continued, they would seek a protection order.
The man hit back claiming his ex was stalking him and demanded she undergo a psychological evaluation. Photo / 123rf
Instead of stopping, the man sent a letter back accusing the mother of “stalking behaviour” and demanded she undergo a psychological evaluation.
A temporary protection order was granted in August and the matter proceeded to a defended hearing in late 2025.
The father’s lawyer argued he exaggerated his behaviour to “create a character” and entertain viewers. He also said what he said online was not necessarily his beliefs.
He suggested the mother’s stress was caused by her monitoring his social media which she rejected, saying she had told the person sending her updates to stop.
When questioned, the father admitted the comments made by his partner and followers were unacceptable.
He also conceded he had taken no steps to shut them down.
Under cross‑examination, he accepted he was wrong to accuse the mother of stalking:
“Do you accept she didn’t go into the livestream?” he was asked.
“Yes.”
“So you’re wrong about the stalking behaviour, correct?”
“Okay,” he conceded.
The judge found the father’s conduct amounted to psychological abuse and therefore family violence.
The judge said the man had created a “dynamic of conflict” online. Photo / 123RF
The judge said the father “clearly condoned” the derogatory comments and “took no active steps” to stop the commenting.
The judge also agreed with the mother’s lawyer the man had created a “dynamic of conflict” that encouraged viewers to attack her.
Crucially, the judge said it did not matter that the mother never watched the streams.
“Father must have known that within the community in which he, mother and [son] reside that the vindictive and offensive comments toward mother would eventually come to her attention,” the judge said.
“I am satisfied that father’s behaviour in condoning the actions of his own partner, and livestream viewers, constitutes a pattern of behaviour against which mother, and [son], need protection. I find that father’s conduct and behaviour was such that it was his intention to control, demean, and manipulate mother.”
A further hearing has been scheduled to determine whether the temporary protection order will be made final.
Chief online safety officer for Netsafe Sean Lyons advised if anyone sees themselves being attacked online not to panic or respond.
“Don’t retaliate. Don’t engage in a back and forth argument that could escalate the situation,” Lyons said.
“Take screenshots, save any messages, URLs, usernames and document what is happening.”
Lyons said Netsafe did not have the power to compel people to comply with taking down content but did work to resolve complaints.
“Netsafe can engage where harmful digital communications affecting New Zealanders are involved, regardless of the platform. Every complaint is not whether a platform allows anonymity but whether the communication is causing serious emotional distress and meets the relevant legal thresholds.”
Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.
Join NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a new podcast examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand. Watch the latest episode at the top of this story, or listen on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.