Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts United States

Judge Dismisses Most Charges Against FTX's Celebrity Boosters 49

Posted by msmash from the ticket-closed dept.
A Florida federal judge has dismissed the majority of claims against celebrities who endorsed Sam Bankman-Fried's now-collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX. Judge K. Michael Moore ruled that investors failed to demonstrate the high-profile endorsers -- including Tom Brady, Gisele Bundchen, Kevin O'Leary, Larry David, Shohei Ohtani, and Stephen Curry -- knew about FTX's fraudulent activities.

In his ruling, Moore wrote that while the celebrity endorsers may have been "uninformed, negligent, or even reckless," plaintiffs didn't adequately establish that defendants had "knowledge of FTX's fraud" or "the requisite intent to deceive and defraud investors."

Judge Dismisses Most Charges Against FTX's Celebrity Boosters More | Reply

Judge Dismisses Most Charges Against FTX's Celebrity Boosters

Comments Filter:

  • Consequence of Celebrity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday May 08, 2025 @01:36PM (#65361965)

    Like it or not, they used their celebrity to endorse a product. If that product is deemed fraudulent, whether they are aware of that fraudulence or not, if they were willing to use their status to promote the product, they should share at least in some small way in the responsibility in whatever action is taken against said product due to the fraud. Otherwise, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to do any due diligence on the next product that comes along, and they can feel free to throw their name on anything.

    Then again, their names were attached to this product, and if people use celebrity endorsements as a positive for a product, all the people involved have had that status smeared by those who pay attention. Can't really think of anyone who pays attention that would use celebrity endorsement as a positive to begin with, as it tends to seem to be a direct red flag toward corrupt, inane, or otherwise useless products, but hey, I'm sure someone out there exists that would fit this particular niche.

    • no (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There's a reason that when Michael Jordan was endorsed by Nike he actually wore Nikes during the game, because if you didn't actually see him wearing Nikes you wouldn't believe his endorsement was genuine. Likewise, there's a reason that the batteries he endorsed (Renewal) didn't stay on the market very long ... because while you might believe Michael Jordan knew something about Hanes underwear and Nike tennis shoes you knew he just took the check for Renewal, like why would he even give a fuck about rechar

      • The George Foreman grill is called the George Foreman grill specifically because it didn't even catch on as a concept until it had its namesake celebrity endorser. What did an electric countertop grill have do to with boxing? Absolutely nothing, but Foreman was a charismatic spokesman and it didn't hurt that the grill actually did what it says on the side of the box.

        Renewal batteries on the other hand were crap. The number of charge cycles were greatly exaggerated by the manufacturer and they required an

        • The George Foreman grill is called the George Foreman grill specifically because it didn't even catch on as a concept until it had its namesake celebrity endorser. What did an electric countertop grill have do to with boxing? Absolutely nothing, but Foreman was a charismatic spokesman and it didn't hurt that the grill actually did what it says on the side of the box.

          During his boxing career Foreman often talked about how much he loved to eat, typically two steaks or "two Big Macs at a time." The grill was a natural fit.

    • And their personal reputations have taken a hit, which is the appropriate consequence. They didn't run the company; they had no idea what the leaders were doing. They were paid spokespeople with no executive authority or knowledge.

    • Like it or not, they used their celebrity to endorse a product. If that product is deemed fraudulent, whether they are aware of that fraudulence or not, if they were willing to use their status to promote the product, they should share at least in some small way in the responsibility in whatever action is taken against said product due to the fraud.

      By that logic, any actor can be sued for any product in which they appeared in a commercial. What about musicians if their song was used as the product jingle? For example, The Rolling Stones can be sued if I wanted to sue Microsoft for Windows 95. The current legal standard is a celebrity must disclose they have been paid for an endorsement; however, every consumer should assume that anything appearing in an ad has been paid to be there.

  • Oh give me a break, they all knew, all of them. There's not a single one of them that thought this was legit.

  • Kevin O'Leary is endorsing it. What a slimeball.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      Canada dodged a bullet there when he ran for Prime Minister. He's quite something. Mr Wonderful I think he goes by.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        Think he didn't quite make it that far actually. Ran for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and lost if I recall correctly. Then he went right back to the US where he's lived for years.

  • Promotes a disincentive. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday May 08, 2025 @01:47PM (#65362005)

    The ruling promotes a disincentive for people to learn about what they are promoting. If you can get away with defrauding people by merely being ignorant of how the fraud works then why would anyone look any closer at a company that is waving a bunch of cash in your face?

    It may not be the law but I'm in favor of everyone that promotes a fraud as being responsible for their part of the fraud.
    Should closing your eyes as you approach a traffic intersection remove any responsibility for hitting pedestrians crossing the street? Why should such a thing be true about fraud?

    • The ruling promotes a disincentive for people to learn about what they are promoting. If you can get away with defrauding people by merely being ignorant of how the fraud works then why would anyone look any closer at a company that is waving a bunch of cash in your face?

      It may not be the law but I'm in favor of everyone that promotes a fraud as being responsible for their part of the fraud. Should closing your eyes as you approach a traffic intersection remove any responsibility for hitting pedestrians crossing the street? Why should such a thing be true about fraud?

      On the bright side, at least the celebrities in question will take a minor reputation hit. I mean, celebrity promotion is kinda a dumbass thing to do anyway. "Hey, here's an actor or sportsball player with absolutely no training in this field that thinks we're awesome!" But it seems to be a long-running theme that sucks people in.

      Speaking of shitty scams, I hear Fyre Fest is coming again. Yes, with the same scam-artist in charge. And there are performers dumb enough to throw their name into the ring on it.

      • On the bright side, at least the celebrities in question will take a minor reputation hit.

        Given the rate of turnover for celebrities, this is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

        I mean, celebrity promotion is kinda a dumbass thing to do anyway. "Hey, here's an actor or sportsball player with absolutely no training in this field that thinks we're awesome!" But it seems to be a long-running theme that sucks people in.

        It is absolute stupid but the fact that it works is precisely why they should be held responsible for what they promote.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          While I pretty much agree with you, I think the proper way to do that is by changing the law.

    • FTX didn't exactly look like a scammer. They looked, for a time, like the next big up and coming thing. These endorsers were just caught up in it but not a part of it.

      https://cryptobriefing.com/ftx... [cryptobriefing.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      What makes you think they got away with it? It's in the article title FFS: "most charges."

      Fraud requires that you know what you're saying isn't true. Negligence doesn't, and neither does violating securities laws. Also, if you read the article, which is all of four newspaper paragraphs, the plaintiffs can bring the fraud charges again if they can provide stronger evidence.

    • If all it takes is Matt Damon saying "spend your money on this", you deserve whatever stupid thing happens to you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Mod parent up and I think more deserving of FP status than any of the preceding comments.

      However I will suggest a disincentive (dare I say solution?) for the bad practice of endorsing garbage: Disgorgement of any payments received for the endorsements of bogus goods and services. Seems too bloody obvious to the most casual observer?

      Not sure if there should be penalties or interest on top of the disgorgement, but pretty sure the losses shouldn't be tax deductible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      On the other hand, it means the price of an influencer goes down because it means you have no recourse if you get bilked out of you money.

      So just because a celebrity is promoting something, or your favorite youtube influencer or tiktok or whatever, it means the consumer is responsible for checking out what's being shilled.

      And that's only a good thing because if you're stupid enough to buy something blindly, you deserve to get scammed. And if you're forced to learn about something before you buy it, then you

    • It also promotes ignoring endorsements because they're meaningless.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rta ( 559125 )

      It may not be the law but I'm in favor of everyone that promotes a fraud as being responsible for their part of the fraud.

      How far out do you take it?

      Have you ever bought anything? Some clothing perhaps? -> liable for child labor
      Watched a movie or listened to a song? -> liable for the apparently now criminal sex and drugs of the industry. (see all the metoo era trials esp. Diddy )
      Paid taxes? -> liable for police misconduct and all your country's military action and all impact of their foreign aid. In the US that would mean both Israel and Hamas since de facto we've propped up both.

    • Why stop at the endorser?
      Surely, everyone involved in the entire ad campaign is equally liable.
    • That analogy doesn’t really work — the celebrities weren’t behind the wheel. They endorsed a service, but they weren’t operating it. Holding them liable would be like suing a passenger for the driver’s crash.

      • I would say it's more akin to selling your gun to someone who walks up to you on the street and offers you are lot of cash. That should be a suspicious situation in the first place. If they immediately use it to commit a crime then you should be liable.

  • Literally everybody was on the FTX bandwagon. The Miami Dolphins even named their stadium FTX Arena. These celebrities weren't hired by FTX for their brains, but for their popularity. It's not reasonable to expect that they all knew about SBF's secret shenanigans.

  • It's almost as if the laws are applied differently if you are rich, famous, a celebrity or athlete. :|

  • Crypto is a scam - who knew :o

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Close