MrBeastYouTube, LLC sued former IT contractor Leroy Nabors in April 2025, alleging he downloaded confidential company files and left hidden cameras in company offices. Those claims have not been established as facts. A judge denied Nabors’s motion to dismiss, but that ruling addressed whether the case could proceed—not whether the allegations were true. A February 2026 report said the parties had reached a settlement in principle; the available source does not verify a final settlement or its terms.
Who sued whom?
The case is MrBeastYouTube, LLC v. Leroy Nabors, case 4:25-cv-00062, filed April 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiff is MrBeastYouTube, LLC—not Jimmy Donaldson personally. The docket classifies the matter as “Contract: Other” and lists a federal-question cause of action. Docket information.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Mr Beast Panther Head Comfort Colors Adult Sweatshirt | $36.99 | Buy on Amazon |
Nabors was a former IT contractor for the company. The lawsuit concerns the company’s allegations about files and cameras, rather than a suit brought by an employee or contestant against a MrBeast-associated company.
What did the company allege?
MrBeastYouTube alleged that Nabors downloaded thousands of confidential company documents before his employment ended and left hidden cameras in company offices. These are claims made in litigation, not findings that a court has made about what happened. Law360’s case report.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
- The classic Mr. Beast panther head logo front and center
- Official apparel for Mr. Beast
- Relaxed fit with side seams offers a roomy, comfortable silhouette
- Soft-washed, garment-dyed US cotton fabric for a lived-in feel
What was said about the files?
In an April 24, 2025 filing supporting its request to seal an exhibit, the company described the exhibit as a 746-page list of files allegedly taken. It said the files included financial data, transaction memoranda, employee compensation information and capitalization tables. The exhibit was later sealed by court order, so the list itself is not available for independent review here. The page count and description are the company’s statements in its filing, not an independently verified inventory. Sealing-motion filing; court order on sealing.
Did the judge dismiss the lawsuit?
No. On July 31, 2025, Judge James C. Dever III denied Nabors’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the complaint failed to state a claim and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The order said the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367(a), and that the plaintiff “plausibly alleges its claims.” Reproduced court order.
That was a pleading-stage decision: the judge concluded the case could proceed on the allegations presented. It was not a trial, a ruling that Nabors was liable, or confirmation that the company’s accusations were true.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened next in the case?
- April 4, 2025: MrBeastYouTube filed its complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- June 2, 2025: The court granted the company’s motion to seal the exhibit listing the alleged files.
- June 13, 2025: Nabors moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.
- July 31, 2025: The judge denied the motion to dismiss.
- August 13, 2025: Nabors filed an answer, according to the docket.
- September 17, 2025: The court entered a scheduling order setting discovery to be completed by January 31, 2026, and motions to be filed by February 14, 2026; trial was to be set by a separate order.
The docket index cited here says its entries were last retrieved September 18, 2025, so it does not verify later docket activity. Docket information.
Did MrBeast settle with the former IT contractor?
On February 11, 2026, Law360 reported that the company told the judge the parties had reached a settlement in principle. That phrase signals a reported agreement in principle, not proof from the available source that a final settlement was completed. The report does not establish the terms or confirm that the court dismissed the case. Law360’s report.
Accordingly, the sourced status is that a settlement in principle was reported; the final resolution and any settlement terms are not verified by the available case reporting. The docket page cited above does not cover developments after September 18, 2025.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
