I have, over the last few days, analyzed Ibio's entire contract and reduced it, first to the exact legal definition of the contract as per its own definitions (which peaked at around 18-19 pages) before creating my own, simplified but accurate overview of the contract's contents (which reduced it down to 6 pages).
Note: "Licensor" refers to Inviz. Text in italic is what was stated by Ibio and reposted to r/skibiditoilet by user Oscar576591, modified slightly for the purpose of grammatical accuracy.
Licensor Gains Perpetual Control Over Ibio's Work: This effectively transfers creative control and commercial use of his videos to Inviz indefinitely - a backdoor IP grab.
Point One refers to section A2, and while it does give Inviz all of these rights, the wording of this section does not state that Ibio loses these rights. Ibio maintains them, and this point falsely implies that he does not. That said, there is a valid concern here: the contract does not specify whether or not Inviz maintains these rights after the contract's expiration or termination, or if these rights are afforded by the contract. Knowing how Inviz has, in past incidents, taken the more lenient option (allowed creators to air anti-Inviz opinions freely when they could legally have refused to under section A12c, retained Boom as Executive Producer under no legal obligation or monetary incentive to do so, and allowed fanmade creators to keep posting content in exchange for a cut of the revenue when they had full legal rights to take said creators' channels down permanently), I'd assume Inviz does not maintain these rights after the agreement ends, but it should still be specified.
Termination Clauses Are One-Sided: Inviz can end the deal instantly, keep Ibio's videos and earnings, and force him to wipe his channel clean.
Inviz requires at least 5 days to terminate the deal in lieu of any violations or harm to Inviz caused by Ibio, while Ibio requires 30 days to do so for any reason. It is a bit one-sided, but either can abort the deal whenever they want, and the phrasing of the first subclause is misleading, as it implies that Inviz can end the deal for any reason whenever they want when they cannot do so. Again, the other two subpoints of this point are dependent on how section A2 is interpreted, and whether or not Inviz has these abilities is unclear. However, the fact that Inviz was the one to reach out and initiate this agreement indicates that they would prefer not to end the deal, potentially out of respect for the community's respect for Ibio, potentially out of a desire to make some money from every use of their IP, but more than likely a mixture of the two.
Payment Terms Are Vague and Easily Manipulated: Inviz controls the accounting definitions and platform — Ibio can’t audit or verify revenue. Realistically, he will never see the 70%. Like ZacDoor, Ibio still has not been paid.
Inviz is still contractually required to pay Ibio (if they owe him a total of $100); he can absolutely determine whether or not Inviz is doing so. Of course, Ibio doesn't control the method via which he is paid, which is true, but the terms are very clear and not easy to manipulate. As for whether Ibio and ZacDoor have actually been paid before or since the contract was released, I cannot verify one way or the other; I don't have access to Inviz's payment data. If so, they are lying about not being paid; if not, it becomes more ambiguous, as several variables have to be considered (did they set up the payment properly, is the amount of revenue owed over the threshold, has the 30-day period of "grace" afforded to Inviz expired, etc). Either way, as per the contract, Ibio should see the 70% at some point. (Although, there is something else the contract is unclear about: does "Net Licensor Revenue" (the part Inviz keeps plus the part they give to Ibio) reset at the start of every month, or does it carry over between months? I'd assume the latter since that's less legally complex and aligns more with Inviz's actions, but again, it's unclear.)
Content Control and Censorship: Full censorship power. Any criticism or deviation can lead to takedown or expulsion. Violates freedom of expression.
Proven false by the ZacDoor incident. Inviz has specified that criticism/deviation is allowed so long as it is not defamatory. Of course, they can still kick him out for doing so, but freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences; you are protected to say what you are saying without legal action being taken against you (except in the case of defamation), but not from your opponent's reaction to your speech. Thus, Point 4 is entirely invalid.
Confidentiality Gag Order: This prevents transparency or whistleblowing. Even sharing proof of unfair treatment would breach the contract.
This is in reference to section A10. The contract, in this section, only states that Ibio may not state the terms and conditions publicly without written permission from Inviz unless it is to enforce the terms of the agreement. This means, if Inviz is in some way violating the agreement (or is reasonably assumed to be violating the agreement) and de-confidentializing the information might get them to stop, or if Inviz grants permission to expose the terms and conditions publicly, the terms and conditions may be exposed publicly without a problem. It's a very vague and strict clause, and it's probably the hardest point to defend on here, but it's also irrelevant for future contracts because... well... Ibio released the contract despite this section. (In addition, if the contract is terminated, it may then become legal to refer to the terms and conditions anyway, but again, this isn't specified in the contract.)
Liability and Indemnity Tilted Against Ibio: Ibio carries all legal risk; If Inviz breaches the contract and causes Ibio damage, they pay a maximum of $1000, while they can force Ibio to pay an indefinite amount if Ibio breaches the contract.
You may think this one is harder to defend than the last one on here, but it's not; Inviz owns the IP and is therefore legally justified in any legal reaction to a breach of the contract on Ibio's end, as anything which escalates to the point of legal risk would invariably breach the contract to the point of termination as outlined in Section A8b1 and A8b2, and therefore would make all of Ibio's content featuring the Skibidi Toilet IP guilty of copyright infringement. Last time there was a serious copyright infringement incident, it was FZCO, so I don't think I need to explain why Inviz would have a problem with copyright infringement. Meanwhile, the only area where Inviz could feasibly breach the contract in a way that damages Ibio is section A3, which specifically relates to Ibio's payment for his participation in the agreement. If this payment is denied when it is legally owed, Ibio could take Inviz to court and receive up to 10 times the payment (and it wouldn't even automatically conclude the agreement), which gives Inviz an incentive to follow the agreement in this section; it would hit their coffers far more if they didn't. (That Inviz has safeguards against its own greed also kinda disproves the notion that Inviz is a greedy corporation, but at this point, it's a drop in the bucket.)
Automatic Renewal Trap: The contract automatically renews every year unless INVIZ decides they don't want to renew anymore. Silent renewal allows indefinite continuation of unfair terms.
Point 7 can be refuted in its entirety with the following sentence: "Ibio can withdraw from the contract at any time, for any or no reason, and is only required to give 30 days' notice beforehand." Most contracts by default renew automatically; it's not a special/exploitative case, and this point is neither relevant nor important. (Yes, by the way, that is a paraphrase of the actual contract's terms for Ibio's withdrawal.)
Unilateral Amendments: Ibio's consent isn’t required — Inviz can rewrite the deal even if Ibio objects, and he will still be bound by the contract.
See point 7. "Ibio can withdraw from the contract at any time, for any or no reason, and only requires 30 days' notice." I will, however, have to additionally note that, as per section A12g, amendments being made to the contract take 30 days to go into effect, and before that timer starts, Ibio has to receive written notification of the amendment; thus, if Ibio objects, he can withdraw from the deal before the change affects him.
Jurisdiction & Arbitration: Even though he isn't from the U.S., Ibio still has to go through the U.S. legal system for issues involving Inviz, which can be expensive. "Expensive U.S. arbitration in another country; I'm from Panama, and I have no access to justice."
The two options here are simple: either Ibio can go through the U.S. legal system, or Inviz can go through the Panama legal system. Inviz would prefer American laws to their Panamanian counterparts (given that most people making this agreement are presumed to live in America, and so does Inviz), and this is actually the more convenient option by far for most people engaged in this or similar agreements; Ibio just happens to not be one of those people. This one really can't be blamed on Inviz.
Language Disclaimer (Spanish Section): "Final page states that the contract was “negotiated in English.” Unfortunately, my English isn't very good, and at the time, I didn't understand it myself. Inviz employees explained it to me and assured me that the contract was excellent. This protected Inviz from any claims based on misunderstanding, and any ambiguity would be interpreted against me."
Two points here. Firstly, Ibio knows Spanish, and the contract stated that by signing, Ibio acknowledged that he was offered the ability to read the contract in Spanish. If he rejected the opportunity to do that, that is on him and him alone. Second, on the final sentence, this is not actually the case. As I've pointed out, there are several unclear gray areas within this contract, such as whether certain "permanent" terms expired with the contract or continued past that, whether section A12 is required or simply recommended (though I believe it to be the latter given the ZacDoor incident), and how the payment system actually works (does owed money carry over between months?). Several ambiguities can be interpreted in Ibio's favor... and, in fact, I believe he's already interpreted one of them in his favor simply by exposing the contract (and not getting sued for it).
That's right. It's time to theorize on Bryan's "true reason" for banning Ibio from the DaFuqBoom Discord server. Again. And probably be wrong. Again.
Since we know from BitByte10 (if you're reading this, thanks, btw) that Ibio's contract is in fact legitimate (he got his contacts at Inviz to confirm), Ibio can't have been banned for faking the contract... (Disclaimer: The following is a theory, and I do not, as of November 15, 2025, make any claim that it is fact.) ...but he may have defamed Inviz and broken the law anyway without needing to do so.
I propose the theory that Ibio began withdrawing from the contract sometime around or before October 9-10, but did not announce this publicly to avoid violating section A10. Then, on November 8 or 9 (if I recall the date correctly), he exposed the terms publicly. However, this was not the problem. The problem would be, assuming I'm right, that Ibio falsely implied that he was still bound by the contract when exposing it publicly, when in fact he was not. Thus, by extension, he implied that Inviz was trying to use the contract to silence him, which they were not doing and, assuming section A10 expired with the contract, could not have done. However, Inviz could not take legal action for contract violation, as Ibio was no longer bound by the contract, and both Ibio and Inviz interpreted section A10 as expiring with the contract.
It would be a brilliant, untraceable plan (if real) to gain immense clout and community support, forcing Inviz to negotiate more favorable terms (rectifying the complaints issued in his 10 Points), if not for the fact that Bryan would have to have figured this out (he'd've asked Inviz why they weren't suing/penalizing Ibio over section A10, got the information of Ibio's withdrawal, figured out that Ibio was defaming Inviz, and banned him from the Discord) and is probably now attempting to blackmail him on this matter (which would explain why Bryan hasn't revealed the reason yet). Fortunately, I get more out of exposing Ibio than blackmailing him, so you now get to know my theory. If it is true, then Ibio intentionally and knowingly implied a false statement about Inviz to be true, and thus committed defamation and broke the law, justifying his ban from Boom's server and far, far more consequences than he has as of yet received.
However, that is just a theory, and I personally think it's a bit too far-fetched to assert as true without further evidence.
