Courts can still try to get out of country actors to appear through certain means, and if they have US ties (Twitch use, partial ownership of a US based company like GS,) they could compel appearance or even remote testimony or force an injunction against those interests, though it would be a stretch and very unlikely.
And I wasn't thinking or libel/slander, but more along the lines of tortious interference/ actions taken against the "business" of being Sinder as a result of defamation of blaming actions taken by Nano as being Sinder's. Hard to argue against most of the revealed information is real, that Redacted and Sinder have performed bad actions, but the "It was just business" meme does have a point. Some of the actions were taken to advance her own business. It could be argued that the vtuber scene is indeed a competition for eyes and attention, that the actions they took were to advance their business. Though it may have been a backstab to their friends, that the actions they took were not illegal in a sense, though it may have hampered their competition, and that they did not directly harm the others, but that nanoless is responsible for the actions that caused harm to the others. Sinder did not cancel commissions or lie about problems/reasons that may have created harm, but that she merely sought a competitive advantage. (if I need a certain piece of equipment from a supplier, I can offer incentive to move myself up the line in front of others/competitors, though it may cause those same to experience setbacks, but that it is the decision of the producer if it is worth the reputational hit or possible downstream problems that it may cause - contract break/financial penalty to do so) Seeking an exclusivity from them is an option that many companies seek out, how the second party in the deal acts on that is their responsibility. Yeah it was kind of dickish to try to exclude your "friends" from the artist, but it was nano that actually cancelled or mislead them as to why. She is "exempted" from the same kind of fallout because she has a product that is in demand, but is the party primarily responsible for the betraying actions, while Sinder who offers no similar "product" is open to public attack/cancellation for the suggestion that indirectly lead to those actions.
But the tweets and streams and their own words has shown that some of the actions that Bao and Lily have taken were do so "maliciously" as revenge for the betrayal of friendships. The reputational damage was caused to harm the Sinder brand and person behind it as revenge for actions taken by a third party. Sinder didn't go out publicly and demand that artists don't work with the others, that was done privately as a business negotiation (dickish when it is your friends, yeah, but common in some industries), that was initially accepted and then revealed by nanoless. Argue that the discord messages was a form of "contract" between Nano and Sinder Inc. Nano was free to break that contract, but the reveal to third parties after the fact can be questionable. And the reveal of that contract and character assassination done as revenge was very public, multiple Google docs, and several others not directly involved crawling out to clout chase with their own "Sinder is bad" stories.
A question would be, Sinder Inc's private actions behind the scenes to gain an advantage can be seen as a betrayal of friends, and given that any damages done by seeking an exclusive artist contract were mostly a result of the artist's actions, is the level of harm caused by the others reveal of Sinder Inc's (freind betrayal/competetive advantage attempt) actions in a public manner, meant to harm the business interests of Sinder Inc and interfere with the relationships/contracts that said business is involved in, both formally (Gamersupps, twitch/sponsors) and informally (is a twitch follow/sub a form of contract between viewer and streamer?). Sinder Inc's could argue that their actions were in the pursuance of business advancement, but the streams and tweets and google docs show that the actions from the other side were done very much to cause reputational and therefore associated business harm.
It would probably never make it that far, but the process to get to a decision would mean time and money for both sides. But again, dumber cases have made it to court and made very bad precedent.
Again, mostly theory and shower thought about what could be consequences for acting like a woman against other women. I really don't have a side, as both have acted poorly.
