Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple:
1. a false statement of material fact
2. knowledge that the statement is false
3. intent to induce reliance
4. justifiable reliance by the victim
5. resulting damages
The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.
On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.
> nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.
Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?
The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied.
On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.
There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are.
> Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments.
According to what? Is this something you made up?
If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"?
> people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself.
I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument.
We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
> but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying.
MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons.
> That's the name of the job.
Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.
1. a false statement of material fact
2. knowledge that the statement is false
3. intent to induce reliance
4. justifiable reliance by the victim
5. resulting damages
The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.
On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.