Tom Brady, Giselle Bündchen, Larry David Sued in FTX Class Action Suit(deadline.com)
deadline.com
Tom Brady, Giselle Bündchen, Larry David Sued in FTX Class Action Suit
https://deadline.com/2022/11/tom-brady-giselle-bundchen-ftx-lawsuit-larry-david-steph-curry-crypto-1235174541/
134 comments
I have the hardest time imagining any sympathy for these promoters. They should be culpable. And I have zero pity for them having failed to discern whether it was right to stake their names or no. You shilled for this all on your own. You made this bed. No tears from you, please.
Lol on what grounds could they be held liable? Arguably, people who worked at FTX didn't all know SBF loaned out customer deposits. Even SBF himself claims to not have realized the extent of it. The truth of SBF's claims should be determined by an investigation, however I don't see cause to go after these celebrities. They were paid to make general statements by the company, they didn't sign financial statements.
If there is some indication they knew it was a scam, then sure go after them. But you can't just seize everyone's emails because you think there's a chance they were involved. You need probable cause.
If there is some indication they knew it was a scam, then sure go after them. But you can't just seize everyone's emails because you think there's a chance they were involved. You need probable cause.
I would love for Larry David to go about his defense fully in character: "Your Honor, I stand by my statements in the advertisement, and still don't recommend anyone to put their money in FTX. Furthermore, I still think stone wheels are a bad idea, prefer natural light, defecating outdoors and doing my dishes while in the shower. As for stupid people voting and their portable music players, I despise them with a burning passion".
Probably not solid legal advice even in a trivial case such as this, but would be so funny to watch.
Probably not solid legal advice even in a trivial case such as this, but would be so funny to watch.
LD can have an amazing ad next Super Bowl promoting another product saying he was technically correct in his crypto ad.
[deleted]
I don't think the celebs are going to be held accountable (and I don't think they should be) in any real sense. None of them had any real insight into how it was being run and I wouldn't expect them to have that knowledge.
The question is whether we should hold them legally accountable to have that knowledge (or at least having done some basic research). In some sense, being a brand ambassador is to lend your credibility and honor to a product. Whether society is better or worse is an open question, as there would be pretty obvious workarounds and it might just add noise to the regulations.
I do think people should be generally accountable for what they promote. Otherwise there is an open loop, where individuals and companies can get the upside without a corresponding downside of accountability. That inherently unbalanced the scales, which is a bad incentive.
I do think people should be generally accountable for what they promote. Otherwise there is an open loop, where individuals and companies can get the upside without a corresponding downside of accountability. That inherently unbalanced the scales, which is a bad incentive.
Who in their right mind thought Larry David personally was lending his honor and credibility to FTX?
And who in their right mind takes financial advice from a basketball or football star?
So if Merck hires some actor to advertise a new prescription painkiller, and that drug later turns out to cause heart attacks, should the actor be held legally accountable?
Good question. Fundamentally, I don't think pharmaceutical advertising should be allowed. Broadly, I agree that the implementation matters and there are lots of edge cases. My primary objective is skin in the game: when people capture the upside of their brand identity, they are also exposed to the downside. If someone isn't trying to use their identity to promote something, it is out of scope.
In the "anonymous actor" situation, they are not trying to use someone's brand/honor so the perverse incentives don't appear to be present.
In the "anonymous actor" situation, they are not trying to use someone's brand/honor so the perverse incentives don't appear to be present.
Maybe they should be. If no actor is willing to take the risk then would we be worse off with less ads for prescription drugs being advertised on TV.
what about the person operating the camera?
it seems there is some conflation between a "brand ambassador" and someone hired to film a commercial.
if someone takes direct interest as payment for filming something, and they further go out and endorse it, then they are a brand ambassador.
if someone gets paid once for doing a job (or some residual per play), but nothing further, that sounds like payment for hire.
it seems there is some conflation between a "brand ambassador" and someone hired to film a commercial.
if someone takes direct interest as payment for filming something, and they further go out and endorse it, then they are a brand ambassador.
if someone gets paid once for doing a job (or some residual per play), but nothing further, that sounds like payment for hire.
Do you think it's reasonable to assume that actors wouldn't take the risk in order to get paid in an industry that is notoriously competitive to get paid in? I could see a lot of people simply chalking it up to "Well, hopefully nothing bad happens...?" That is also assuming they even fully appreciate the risk that they'd be taking on. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be in the interest of the ad agency to make them aware of their share of culpability.
[deleted]
I think we can distinguish between an actor playing a role and a famous person hired to endorse a product. If this means commercials revert to having all no-name actors because the law tilts towards endorsement, so be it.
Please explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression.
> explain how such a law could ever possibly comply with the constitutional vagueness doctrine, and with 1st Amendment protections on freedom of expression
Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment [1]. This is old law.
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180
Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment [1]. This is old law.
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180
Fraud isn't protected, so that is how you would handle the 1st amendment. Whether the person was acting as an actor or was endorsing it as a celebrity is a matter of fact for the jury. It actually doesn't even sound that hard to demonstrate. Tom Brady wasn't paid 10MM (or whatever) because he is that much of a better actor. He was paid to be himself and endorse a product.
But how do you define "celebrity" in a legal sense. Why is Jimmy Noname not culpable but Chris Pratt would be? And what if Jimmy Noname did an FTX ad and the following year got the lead role in the most successful movie of 2023? Is he retroactively a celebrity endorsement?
Mercedes' Formula 1 car had like 6 FTX ads on it this season. Why isn't Mercedes or Lewis Hamilton in this class action?
Mercedes' Formula 1 car had like 6 FTX ads on it this season. Why isn't Mercedes or Lewis Hamilton in this class action?
You wouldn't define celebrity. You would define endorsement. And you would let the lawyers present evidence and let a jury decide whether they thought the person was endorsing it.
I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's an interesting idea. And the follow on effects of making endorsements things that people actually believe in would be a nice world.
I assume Mercedes/Lewis Hamilton weren't included because the lawyers went by whoever did it on the superbowl. Cause it was an easy list to find. And a lot of Americans don't know anything about F1 so it's under the radar.
I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's an interesting idea. And the follow on effects of making endorsements things that people actually believe in would be a nice world.
I assume Mercedes/Lewis Hamilton weren't included because the lawyers went by whoever did it on the superbowl. Cause it was an easy list to find. And a lot of Americans don't know anything about F1 so it's under the radar.
None of the celebrity endorsers committed fraud. You didn't answer the question.
You mean, because they were merely negligently misleading instead of intentionally misleading? Yes, it's seems to not be under the current definition of fraud. I thought we were discussing a counterfactual that the OP suggested where negligent endorsements were actionable under a law similar to fraud.
Fraud was used by me as an example of the 1st amendment being okay with certain commercial speech being actionable.
Fraud was used by me as an example of the 1st amendment being okay with certain commercial speech being actionable.
> if Merck hires some actor to advertise a new prescription painkiller, and that drug later turns out to cause heart attacks, should the actor be held legally accountable?
Of course. Nobody is sending them to jail. But at the very least, their earnings should go the victims. (Analogy: if your employer perpetuates fraud, they go to jail and you lose your job.)
Of course. Nobody is sending them to jail. But at the very least, their earnings should go the victims. (Analogy: if your employer perpetuates fraud, they go to jail and you lose your job.)
> Analogy: if your employer perpetuates fraud, they go to jail and you lose your job.
My previous earnings aren’t taken. None of the contractors that did work for the company get their payments clawed back.
My previous earnings aren’t taken. None of the contractors that did work for the company get their payments clawed back.
> they go to jail and you lose your job
You don't have to give your paycheck back though.
You don't have to give your paycheck back though.
> don’t have to give your paycheck back
You may if you’re senior enough. Public figures pushing nonsense are in positions of influence. It’s mind blowing that an emerging opinion on this forum is the beneficiaries of fraud should be immune from consequences.
You may if you’re senior enough. Public figures pushing nonsense are in positions of influence. It’s mind blowing that an emerging opinion on this forum is the beneficiaries of fraud should be immune from consequences.
From a guy who laid bricks in a FTX office, to Tom brady, draw us a line. Let's see how deep guilt by association goes in your head, and how you would regulate this.
> draw us a line
We have centuries of case law on this. If I lose money in a fraud, you can be sure as hell I’ll sue everyone who took cash out. Naïveté is not an excuse for misconduct.
We have centuries of case law on this. If I lose money in a fraud, you can be sure as hell I’ll sue everyone who took cash out. Naïveté is not an excuse for misconduct.
Why did you find it mind-blowing? Even though you disagree, shouldn’t you find it unsurprising that most people think that ignorant employees or contractors didn’t do anything wrong, especially below the level of executive? What experiences led to your surprise?
> shouldn’t you find it unsurprising that most people think that ignorant employees or contractors didn’t do anything wrong, especially below the level of executive?
We aren’t the first generation asking these questions. Most of this is settled law. Profiting from perpetuating fraud generally involves clawbacks. Where the thresholds lie is a matter for courts. But everyone involved will be drawn into that process. If you find that distasteful, consider whether you are profiting from fraud.
We aren’t the first generation asking these questions. Most of this is settled law. Profiting from perpetuating fraud generally involves clawbacks. Where the thresholds lie is a matter for courts. But everyone involved will be drawn into that process. If you find that distasteful, consider whether you are profiting from fraud.
Ah, I see. You’re confused. You’re thinking of precedent for individuals aware of it, who knowingly perpetuated it (who can typically be charged criminally) and you’re perhaps conflating it with situations where innocent employees at a company lost retirement investments or jobs due to the collapse of the fraudulent company.
While it’s true that these are old questions, it simply is not settled law that claws back money from employees who worked at a company doing wrong but didn’t perpetuate the fraud themselves.
So, the answer to my question might be that you acquired a misunderstanding of the law at some point. You also believed that most people in HN are versed in this area of business law so expected them to see this your way.
While it’s true that these are old questions, it simply is not settled law that claws back money from employees who worked at a company doing wrong but didn’t perpetuate the fraud themselves.
So, the answer to my question might be that you acquired a misunderstanding of the law at some point. You also believed that most people in HN are versed in this area of business law so expected them to see this your way.
> thinking of precedent for individuals aware of it, who knowingly perpetuated it (who can typically be charged criminally) and you’re perhaps conflating it with situations where innocent employees at a company lost retirement investments or jobs
Nope. If they were aware, that’s criminal. If they were bystanders, that’s just tough luck. We are discussing liability.
Promoters have been held responsible for fraud, particularly around securities promotion, for over a century. This isn’t arcane law. It’s commonsensical for anyone not making their living peddling fraud.
Nope. If they were aware, that’s criminal. If they were bystanders, that’s just tough luck. We are discussing liability.
Promoters have been held responsible for fraud, particularly around securities promotion, for over a century. This isn’t arcane law. It’s commonsensical for anyone not making their living peddling fraud.
What if a famous person endorses an alcoholic beverage company and it later turns out alcohol contributes to disease or death?
Should be bidirectional. They pay me for the liver disease, I pay them for losing enough anxiety to get lucky.
Yes, duh.
Medical decisions shouldn’t be based on actors attractiveness… it should be based on efficacy and safety.
Medical decisions shouldn’t be based on actors attractiveness… it should be based on efficacy and safety.
The difference here is that Brady and Bundchen not only received payment in equity as brand ambassadors they also invested into a stake of FTX. The conflict of interest is probably more actionable but the official role could make him subject to being an insider. Obviously there is a lot of negligence to go around here but if we swapped Ja Rule for Brady and FTX for Fyre Festevial (and Bahamas for Bermuda) we can see that some lawyers have gainful employment for a while.
How is this a conflict of interest? That’s the first time I’ve seen it presented this way. If they received equity, are their interests not more aligned with customers?
Read my other comment, this is mostly about the true relationship since they are not simply being paid for an appearance. Given everything that transpired, was Brady's interests aligned with customers? Tough to say yes.
I would say they're less aligned because they now have an incentive to sell it for the highest price and convince others to buy it. The interests are opposite.
But equity is supposed to go up in value because of profit and growth and whatnot, not just in price. That's why you buy it. At least in a normal universe. They still need to know there was a scam going on to be culpable for it.
Though I can see taking whatever cash payments they got back, if it rightfully belongs to scammed customers.
Though I can see taking whatever cash payments they got back, if it rightfully belongs to scammed customers.
> The conflict of interest is probably more actionable but the official role could make him subject to being an insider.
What? No. Kardashian was fined because she advertised crypto without disclosing she was paid for the ad. Presumably these celebrities already made those disclosures, or it's understood since everyone knows TV ads are paid.
What? No. Kardashian was fined because she advertised crypto without disclosing she was paid for the ad. Presumably these celebrities already made those disclosures, or it's understood since everyone knows TV ads are paid.
As far as I know, people do not have to disclose payment for TV ads because that would make TV advertising dead. Rather, I'm thinking more from the perspective that getting the CEO of a company (unbeknownst to the viewers) to pump up the company without saying they are a substantial insider is the problematic part. The issue is not failing to disclose payment but failing to disclose that your true relationship.
I think anybody who promotes something has at the very least the responsibility to verify that way they're promoting is probably on the up-and-up. Obviously they can't know for sure but some diligence is due, especially when the thing smells like investment advice.
If I put my money into ftx because I saw Tom Brady hawking it that's on me. But to say that Tom is without responsibility ignores human nature. Celebrities get paid millions to endorse products because it demonstrably short-circuits our decision-making process.
Edit: to be clear I speak entirely on the moral/ethical side of the question. For better or worse the legal system doesn't legislate mortality.
If I put my money into ftx because I saw Tom Brady hawking it that's on me. But to say that Tom is without responsibility ignores human nature. Celebrities get paid millions to endorse products because it demonstrably short-circuits our decision-making process.
Edit: to be clear I speak entirely on the moral/ethical side of the question. For better or worse the legal system doesn't legislate mortality.
Third party auditors said FTX was all groovy. How the heck can we expect Larry David or Tom Brady to perform better financial DD than folks who quite literally do it for a living?
They’re entertainers, their contributions should be judged on entertainment value; the auditors should be the ones judged on audit quality.
If an auditor had raised flags and Tom and Larry went on to promote it knowing that, that’s a totally different story. But no-one knew, that’s kinda the whole problem.
They’re entertainers, their contributions should be judged on entertainment value; the auditors should be the ones judged on audit quality.
If an auditor had raised flags and Tom and Larry went on to promote it knowing that, that’s a totally different story. But no-one knew, that’s kinda the whole problem.
My position is that celebs have no business hawking anything as risky as crypto. You're right, they're entertainers. They are not competent to have any public opinion on what someone else should do about crypto.
This isn't like "washing hands is a good hygiene practice". Crypto is controversial, I can't throw a rock without hitting ten finance processionals that have ten contradictory opinions. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about should stay in their lane and not spout crap they don't understand about stuff that has a major impact on people's finances. And if they do, then they own the consequences.
I don't know if it's legal, but let's say it is: are we ok with celebs endorsing gambling? I sure as hell am not, I don't care what the auditors say about the solvency of the platform.
This isn't like "washing hands is a good hygiene practice". Crypto is controversial, I can't throw a rock without hitting ten finance processionals that have ten contradictory opinions. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about should stay in their lane and not spout crap they don't understand about stuff that has a major impact on people's finances. And if they do, then they own the consequences.
I don't know if it's legal, but let's say it is: are we ok with celebs endorsing gambling? I sure as hell am not, I don't care what the auditors say about the solvency of the platform.
The government enforcing who is and isn't allowed to talk about "controversial topics" is a slippery slope I don't want to come close to approaching. Ban calling for acts of violence, sure, but beyond that let people make their own decisions.
The populous will be much better served by learning how to look at a bunch of actors* making a bunch of conflicting statements about a topic and gauging the net ground truth themselves than simply relying on the government to be the divine truth-tellers without question.
When they get bit here and there and lose some money, that's a pretty important lesson in returns too good to be true.
*Hewitt-Bishop, not David-McConaughey
The populous will be much better served by learning how to look at a bunch of actors* making a bunch of conflicting statements about a topic and gauging the net ground truth themselves than simply relying on the government to be the divine truth-tellers without question.
When they get bit here and there and lose some money, that's a pretty important lesson in returns too good to be true.
*Hewitt-Bishop, not David-McConaughey
I'm not taking a position on what the law should be. That was unclear in my original post, and I've edited it to reflect that.
I think it depends. If Tiger Woods promotes a golf club and I find out that it sucks, I'll be annoyed at him.
If Larry David promotes a crypto exchange, my expectation is:
1.) Larry David doesn't know how crypto works, and very likely thinks it's stupid
2.) Larry David doesn't understand the additional layer of what a crypto exchange is
3.) Larry David doesn't have any opinion regarding which crypto exchange to use. He definitely doesn't know internals wrt how much of a reserve the exchange is keeping, and whether the coins with which they're backing other coins are reputable
If I lose money with this exchange, I place 0 blame on Larry David.
If Larry David promotes a crypto exchange, my expectation is:
1.) Larry David doesn't know how crypto works, and very likely thinks it's stupid
2.) Larry David doesn't understand the additional layer of what a crypto exchange is
3.) Larry David doesn't have any opinion regarding which crypto exchange to use. He definitely doesn't know internals wrt how much of a reserve the exchange is keeping, and whether the coins with which they're backing other coins are reputable
If I lose money with this exchange, I place 0 blame on Larry David.
You sound like a rational person who isn't swayed by endorsements by non-experts. Or maybe you already know about crypto, so you already have an informed opinion. None of that applies to most people. Again, if it did companies wouldn't be spending eye-watering amounts of money to these celebs.
We all ought to be rational. We're not.
We all ought to be rational. We're not.
I mean sure. But Gisele's ads were specifically calling her an "ESG Advisor" to FTX.
If you're going to tell me you're any kind of "governance" advisor to a company that defrauded people to the tune of billions, I am not going to pretend you are somehow not partially liable.
If you're going to tell me you're any kind of "governance" advisor to a company that defrauded people to the tune of billions, I am not going to pretend you are somehow not partially liable.
Do you feel all employees of FTX are partially liable? Where do you draw that line?
People endorsing products have zero inputs in the decision making processes that lead to these meltdowns so I don’t really see how they can be held accountable.
People endorsing products have zero inputs in the decision making processes that lead to these meltdowns so I don’t really see how they can be held accountable.
FTX employees are fully liable. Except probably the janitor. FTX/Alameda were obvious scams.
What about the HR staff interviewing or hiring people?
Or the marketing person who created / managed an Instagram campaign?
Or the IT staff who setup notebooks and a VPN/firewall?
None of these (or many others) was even involved in the core product or are expected to know anything about financial regulations.
There is a reason that usually only senor leadership is involved in such suits.
There are exceptions to that rule of course
Or the marketing person who created / managed an Instagram campaign?
Or the IT staff who setup notebooks and a VPN/firewall?
None of these (or many others) was even involved in the core product or are expected to know anything about financial regulations.
There is a reason that usually only senor leadership is involved in such suits.
There are exceptions to that rule of course
Why is the janitor not liable? They janited for a fraudulent company.
Obvious scams eh? Wheres your short money
You're probably right.
But Tom Brady owns his own crypto/nft scam company (autograph.io), so I wouldn't be surprised if he knew it was a money grab.
I also won't be surprised if he faces charges for it down the road.
But Tom Brady owns his own crypto/nft scam company (autograph.io), so I wouldn't be surprised if he knew it was a money grab.
I also won't be surprised if he faces charges for it down the road.
I don't want to seem like I am defending crypto, but how is selling NFTs a scam? FTX was scam not because it was selling crypto but because it was an actual financial scam, a business breaking US laws.
I personally think the goal of autograph.io is "to take advantage of unsophisticated investors", which is part of the allegation against him wrt FTX.
He does this by using his celebrity power, as well as bringing in other big athletes (tiger woods for example) to pump up artificial demand for junk NFTs. I also think that the NFTs they sell are designed to be confusing, and the buyer probably doesn't know what they're (not) buying in many cases... although this is probably true for all NFTs.
This may all be legal now, but I think he's playing with fire. When people engage in greed fueled schemes like this, chances go up that they have engaged in actual fraud.
IMO what he's doing here is more crooked than his FTX involvement already.
He does this by using his celebrity power, as well as bringing in other big athletes (tiger woods for example) to pump up artificial demand for junk NFTs. I also think that the NFTs they sell are designed to be confusing, and the buyer probably doesn't know what they're (not) buying in many cases... although this is probably true for all NFTs.
This may all be legal now, but I think he's playing with fire. When people engage in greed fueled schemes like this, chances go up that they have engaged in actual fraud.
IMO what he's doing here is more crooked than his FTX involvement already.
The SEC already got $1.25 million from Kim Kardashian for promoting Etherium Max without disclosing they paid her $250K to do so.[1]
[1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183
[1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183
.. and Steph Curry!
Does anyone have any litigation history on "celebrities endorsing something that turns out to be a fraud"?
I would think they wouldn't end up having to pay much, if anything. Their lawyers would argue "Hey, you made your own decisions! Don't blame it on Steph!"
But I would predict they make a token payment and get dismissed from the suit. Just a guess.
Edit: I don't disagree with any of the answers. I'm just curious as to whether this has ever happened before. I think "sue everyone who has any money" is the plaintiff philosophy here.
Does anyone have any litigation history on "celebrities endorsing something that turns out to be a fraud"?
I would think they wouldn't end up having to pay much, if anything. Their lawyers would argue "Hey, you made your own decisions! Don't blame it on Steph!"
But I would predict they make a token payment and get dismissed from the suit. Just a guess.
Edit: I don't disagree with any of the answers. I'm just curious as to whether this has ever happened before. I think "sue everyone who has any money" is the plaintiff philosophy here.
The world would be better if people who endorsed things were liable for what they endorsed. They should feel the pressure to actually look into what they’re advocating. I hope this is a pivot moment.
I would prefer if the FTC banned celebrities from endorsing financial products instead of an ad hoc system of suing people after a scandal (of various size).
Otherwise - I'm not sure how this would really ever work. Will commercial directors and producers also be found liable? What if you endorse something like a normal Visa credit card and then three years later there is a scandal at Visa? What if FTX just lost 3% of customer funds? What due diligence could Giselle really have done? FTX was invested in by respected VC and SBF was featured positively in Forbes and the traditional media.
Otherwise - I'm not sure how this would really ever work. Will commercial directors and producers also be found liable? What if you endorse something like a normal Visa credit card and then three years later there is a scandal at Visa? What if FTX just lost 3% of customer funds? What due diligence could Giselle really have done? FTX was invested in by respected VC and SBF was featured positively in Forbes and the traditional media.
I'm pretty sure banning endorsements would violate the first amendment. It has to be something very serious to justify prior restraint. Making the consequences of a bad endorsement large on the other hand does not have such issues.
I'm pretty sure it would not violate the first amendment. The FTC already limits what drug advertisers can say and what financial advertisers can say. Some products like cigarettes can't even be advertised. Until fairly recently hedge funds were not allowed to advertise. I'm not sure why the FTC or SEC couldn't put the same rules in place (if it wanted) for trading platforms.
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2013/12/sec-lifts-longt...
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2013/12/sec-lifts-longt...
The FTC has no statutory authority to issue such a ban. There is no legal definition of "celebrity". It's such a vague term as to be meaningless in a legal sense.
You may be right that they wouldnt want the eventual complexity but I don't think it would be impossible to say that if someone in an ad uses their existing name and likeness then it is different than just a random model smiling in the ad. The FTX ad with Brady relied heavily on his actual likeness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZqk8k4QwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZqk8k4QwQ
"Celebrity" is ill defined, but the law definitely recognizes a public figure
The practical way this would work is probably insurance - if you want to pay a celebrity to endorse a product, then you also buy an insurance policy which will pay their costs if they’re sued due to that endorsement. That makes it similar to other professional liability insurance.
Why stop at financial products? If a celebrity advertises a car as safe and then someone close to you dies in a crash, should you not hold that celebrity accountable? Why didn't they look into all claims about safety of those cars?
I was proposing you ban endorsements of financial products so that it would not be possible to sue someone for later wrongdoings by that company. Once you have explicit rules for what is legal and what is not (there are already these rules) then it eliminates any confusion of whats illegal if you are a public figure.
Commercial directors and producers should also be held liable. We have a marketing industry which is far too ambivalent about the negative impacts they scale.
How would one do this without crushing free speech?
If the spokesperson is completely hoodwinked, what then?
The buyer pretty much has to know that these kinds of investments are essentially 3 Card Monte.
If the spokesperson is completely hoodwinked, what then?
The buyer pretty much has to know that these kinds of investments are essentially 3 Card Monte.
The right to free speech is not absolute (for one example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action). I mean the government has every right to arrest and reprimand you if you happen to yell "I have a bomb!" in a crowded airport. So in similar regards, doing this wouldn't necessarily crush free speech as it currently stands.
As for being hoodwinked, then still hold them to a fault. Some people might find that unjust, but again, it would force people to try to think, behave, and act more responsibly (or else face repercussions). Otherwise, people could always just play the naivety card, akin to "I didn't know the law, so I shouldn't be penalized for breaking it". Arguably, if you enable such, then society can become a race to the bottom in zero accountability and all that comes with it. Hence why some people think that a part of being a responsible adult, means owning up to your mistakes, even if you didn't know any better.
As for being hoodwinked, then still hold them to a fault. Some people might find that unjust, but again, it would force people to try to think, behave, and act more responsibly (or else face repercussions). Otherwise, people could always just play the naivety card, akin to "I didn't know the law, so I shouldn't be penalized for breaking it". Arguably, if you enable such, then society can become a race to the bottom in zero accountability and all that comes with it. Hence why some people think that a part of being a responsible adult, means owning up to your mistakes, even if you didn't know any better.
In the context of advertising speech, the non-absolute point seems moot. How would one boost business by sowing chaos?
Actors tend to have agents for the very due diligence reason under discussion.
Hammer the agents for professional malpractice if the agents don't suss out the scam.
Actors tend to have agents for the very due diligence reason under discussion.
Hammer the agents for professional malpractice if the agents don't suss out the scam.
Well in the context of advertising, the matter is not so much about boosting business by sowing chaos, but more of a matter of whether does free speech allow you to promote fraud. It has already been deemed that fraud is not necessarily protected by the first amendment, so what I'm saying is: if we reiterate that, it doesn't exactly "crush" free speech as it currently stands. But whether that's actually the case here (celebs involved in fraud), I agree is moot.
Let me also add that, holding someone to a fault doesn't necessarily mean to the same degree. Innocence isn't necessarily a black and white matter, and you can always adjust the punishment to fit the crime.
Anyhow, certainly the most innocent people here, are taxpayers not whatsoever involved in the matter, especially those who have been exclaiming about the dangers of crypto for reasons such as this. They should not be the ones forced to pay.
Let me also add that, holding someone to a fault doesn't necessarily mean to the same degree. Innocence isn't necessarily a black and white matter, and you can always adjust the punishment to fit the crime.
Anyhow, certainly the most innocent people here, are taxpayers not whatsoever involved in the matter, especially those who have been exclaiming about the dangers of crypto for reasons such as this. They should not be the ones forced to pay.
This argument is nonsensical. The only way to accomplish that would be to ban all product endorsements outright. Do you want to hold celebrities who endorsed VW cars liable for the VW diesel scandal? How about actors who endorsed anything that ended up being not what it was presented to be? I hate advertisement and would love for it to not exists. But if we allow its existence you can't expect all participants to conduct a deep investigation before uttering a word.
Yes they should be liable for all of those things. If they make a general endorsement they should absorb general liability for that endorsement harming people.
How would that work? Brand ambassadors, celebrities hired for ad campaigns etc aren’t company employees. They don’t have any input on the product or the company’s direction.
A brand ambassador makes claims about something being great. If the claims are baseless then the brand ambassador is misleading people in a way that harms them. Just because the brand ambassador didn’t look into it doesn’t change anything. That’s just them being irresponsible.
A brand ambassador should be a famous face of a legit auditing practice. Anything less is accepting bullshit into the system… if the system is designed for large numbers of people to take your advice then the system should hold you accountable if the advice is wrong / poorly researched.
A brand ambassador should be a famous face of a legit auditing practice. Anything less is accepting bullshit into the system… if the system is designed for large numbers of people to take your advice then the system should hold you accountable if the advice is wrong / poorly researched.
This is probably why so many celebrities sue people using their likeness without permission. It lessens their "brand" when people think they are endorsing products like that.
Floyd Mayweather, DJ Khaled, and Kim Kardashian were fined for promoting cryptocurrencies without disclosing their full financial relationship with the cryptocurrencies.
https://youtu.be/hCEUjBx_yXg?t=468
https://youtu.be/hCEUjBx_yXg?t=468
The most charismatic desert islander finds a stash of pretty sea shells. She persuades a bunch of the other marooned survivors to exchange their food rations for pretty shells.
A week later these chumps feel as stupid as they are hungry. Their only way out is to repeat the fraud. When they find some newcomers stupid enough to swap food for shells they as culpable as the original fraudster. Legally, does it matter if they knew that the shells were worthless junk? If they got triple their food ration back by exiting their shell position in a deal with someone even more stupid then they were, is it worse?
We push the original fraudster into the volcano because their very first action was to quit the shell economy. You can argue that anyone else who exited should be proportionally liable. In fact, you could take it as a given that everyone would have exited at some point. They’re all going to get hungry and eventually angry, especially when they see the fraudsters gorging themselves on all that food. You can therefore quantify peoples immorality, guilt, and liability not by how much they exited with — be that food rations or USD — but by how many shells they held over the lifetime of the scheme.
The original fraudster held all the shells at one point and gets the biggest sentence and pays the biggest damages. Everyone else is liable on a sliding scale based on how much they invested.
If Larry David took a cash fee for some acting then that’s fine. If he got any FTT out of this, he’s on the hook. If you’ve ever bought into a scam coin, so are you.
A week later these chumps feel as stupid as they are hungry. Their only way out is to repeat the fraud. When they find some newcomers stupid enough to swap food for shells they as culpable as the original fraudster. Legally, does it matter if they knew that the shells were worthless junk? If they got triple their food ration back by exiting their shell position in a deal with someone even more stupid then they were, is it worse?
We push the original fraudster into the volcano because their very first action was to quit the shell economy. You can argue that anyone else who exited should be proportionally liable. In fact, you could take it as a given that everyone would have exited at some point. They’re all going to get hungry and eventually angry, especially when they see the fraudsters gorging themselves on all that food. You can therefore quantify peoples immorality, guilt, and liability not by how much they exited with — be that food rations or USD — but by how many shells they held over the lifetime of the scheme.
The original fraudster held all the shells at one point and gets the biggest sentence and pays the biggest damages. Everyone else is liable on a sliding scale based on how much they invested.
If Larry David took a cash fee for some acting then that’s fine. If he got any FTT out of this, he’s on the hook. If you’ve ever bought into a scam coin, so are you.
In this story the charismatic islander took the food in promise she would keep it safe in case they want to trade more food for shells later. Instead she used the food to try and catch quarry, but all the quarry got away and it was wasted.
IMO selling shitcoins is a much more difficult prosecution than ripping off customer deposits.
IMO selling shitcoins is a much more difficult prosecution than ripping off customer deposits.
Doesn't that analogy break down at the sale step? I.e. shitcoin owners might still beleive their coins are valuable when they sell them, thus are not guilty of anything morally.
That’s a good point. If someone has to sell their coin to pay an unexpected vet bill, does that still count as a confession of immorality? In the end, their actions boil down to admitting that the only good thing you can do with a shitcoin is sell it.
If you persuaded the vet to fix little Mittens in exchange for some shitcoin are you demonstrating you are a true and moral believer in the value of this asset, or are you just immorally passing the bag in a novel way? I’m going with the latter.
If you persuaded the vet to fix little Mittens in exchange for some shitcoin are you demonstrating you are a true and moral believer in the value of this asset, or are you just immorally passing the bag in a novel way? I’m going with the latter.
I feel like this is revisionist history — the same could be said for the USD if it came crashing down eventually. Or maybe other currencies which are more likely to fail in the near future. Are you immoral for ever having used them? Most (all?) currencies are fiat anyways, so nearly equivalent in value.
Currencies are usually backed by something useful, like goods or resources or labor. USD and oil are linked globally for example.
The problem with these new currencies is that the people proposing them offer nothing of substance other than fear — the fear of missing out.
The problem with these new currencies is that the people proposing them offer nothing of substance other than fear — the fear of missing out.
I'm going to go to Yap and tell them their ancestors were immoral shitbags.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Yap_lice...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Yap_lice...
This is absurd. You don’t get to open the books of the company you are being paid to endorse. Nor should you be allowed to.
This is an insane suit and is hopefully thrown out right away.
I will say it again, absurd.
This is an insane suit and is hopefully thrown out right away.
I will say it again, absurd.
> don’t get to open the books of the company you are being paid to endorse
If you make money peddling a fraud, you’re liable. This is old law. Whether they have liability beyond their earnings is up for debate. But that there is liability is settled.
If you make money peddling a fraud, you’re liable. This is old law. Whether they have liability beyond their earnings is up for debate. But that there is liability is settled.
So should the lawsuit include the NFL? These aired during the super bowl. Maybe the network? Where does the responsibility stop?
I don't see much of a case unless plantants can prove the defendants were aware of the fraud. This seems unlikely.
I don't see much of a case unless plantants can prove the defendants were aware of the fraud. This seems unlikely.
Agreed. I think the lawsuit is dumb, but if you're going to sue the actors you need to sue NBC as well.
Can diabetics sue the professional athletes that marketed sugary beverages as liquid performance? Those with lung cancer, can they sue all the actors that touted the therapeutic benefits of lighting up? And gambling apps, I'm broke because a famous person made it all look like innocent tap-tap-away fun!
None of these celebs will face any legal trouble because they rightly aren't responsible for the companies they shilled for. If you were able to perform true due diligence before endorsing a product or service, you wouldn't see any recognizable faces in advertising.
None of these celebs will face any legal trouble because they rightly aren't responsible for the companies they shilled for. If you were able to perform true due diligence before endorsing a product or service, you wouldn't see any recognizable faces in advertising.
I would be willing to bet that their contracts have stipulations that protect them. Maybe they are indemnified by the company from law suits.
[deleted]
I'm torn between thinking there's no reason to expect Tom Brady to be an expert of crypto or business or accounting, and thinking that it would be good to make celebrities personally liable for faults with whatever they endorse. If celebrity endorsements carried liability, they would become more expensive and happen less, and fewer people who are persuaded by celebrities would be convinced to buy things they otherwise wouldn't.
That said, it would seem extremely weird to me to sue one of the extras in that commercial. They basically did the same thing, try to persuade people to use FTX, as the celebrities. Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it?
That said, it would seem extremely weird to me to sue one of the extras in that commercial. They basically did the same thing, try to persuade people to use FTX, as the celebrities. Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it?
> Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it?
It's not, but I am guessing they are targeting those with money, not the broke extras.
It's not, but I am guessing they are targeting those with money, not the broke extras.
They could sue FTX… oh wait
the famous people use their authority (that shouldn’t really exist but is there) to persuade us. thus they abuse the trust already established between them and us (again, i think the trust was always misplaced but it’s nonetheless there). while some acting randos don’t command any special authority or trustworthiness to them
Not wrong for one and not the other. The non-celebs just don’t have enough money to make it worth it to sue them.
Would you expect an actor, upon getting a commercial role, to start doing due diligence? That seems like too much to ask of a minor actor, even if it's reasonable for some triple digit millionaire.
No. I wasn’t even meaning it was wrong for both of them. I was only saying lawsuits go after people with money.
If the actors know enough to know something is a scam, then they are in the wrong, too.
Regarding due diligence, anybody who accepts money to lend their name’s credibility to a product ought to do a lot of due diligence if they don’t want their name sullied. Or they don’t care about their name, or they shouldn’t sell their name.
If the actors know enough to know something is a scam, then they are in the wrong, too.
Regarding due diligence, anybody who accepts money to lend their name’s credibility to a product ought to do a lot of due diligence if they don’t want their name sullied. Or they don’t care about their name, or they shouldn’t sell their name.
Larry David in an ironic twist did warn people
No he did not. What he did was suggest that betting against FTX was equivalent to betting against the idea of electric lights or indoor plumbing
No, the ad narrator and framing suggested that. His character within the ad advised against FTX.
Yeah, as if he didn’t know what was in the rest of the ad, which defined the meaning of what he said. To be so literal is senseless
It was actually a real head scratcher, since his character poo-poo'd coffee, and we all know that Larry will go to great lengths just to get them beans!
It's awesome that he was in their commercial, taking their money, without endorsing them.
That’s a very narrow definition of endorsement and that would not fly in any ad firm. To be paired with the commodity is all that’s needed, which is why they say all publicly is good publicity
You say that in reference to this FTX commercial?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjKOZdenf2E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjKOZdenf2E
So now every "brand ambassador" must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation they receive in exchange for promotions? Sign me up.
> now every "brand ambassador" must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation they receive in exchange for promotions?
If you’re shilling securities, yes.
If you’re shilling securities, yes.
chayesfss(1)
Let's see someone go after Sequoia for their hagiography of SBF and FTX. While it could be argued that reasonable people shouldn't expect football players or supermodels to have done due diligence, they certainly expect a VC to have.
Honestly its the NFL that should be liable. They are the ones running ads with seemingly little due diligence.
But celebrities endorse gambling so how is this any different? Do people really think they are winners if they play online "slot" games?
I think this just further emphasizes Larry David's genius. His involvement is not like the others.
It’s the same. He provided his genius to push the message that the stupid fraudulent crypto exchange was as significant as the wheel, etc.
After watching the Ad again, I agree with you.
I still think it's tamer than some of the others, but you make a good point.
I still think it's tamer than some of the others, but you make a good point.
Lawsuits often include people for invalid reasons, sometimes just for attention.
Unless a lawyer pops up with reasons that this might have merit it’s better to just ignore instead of speculate, because it’s essentially just advertising the lawsuit.
Unless a lawyer pops up with reasons that this might have merit it’s better to just ignore instead of speculate, because it’s essentially just advertising the lawsuit.
This lawsuit will get thrown out in a hot minute in my expectation.
Is this the first scandal, if you could call it that, that Larry David has gotten caught up in? First time being sued? I was just thinking the other day how amazing it is that Larry David has gone so many years being in the public eye without getting burned. Absolute legend.
They are just going where there is money.
Larry David was the Joe Isuzu of crypto.
Why is Steph Curry left out?
The role of foreign governments in these ads may also matter , especially China and North Korea, at least 8% of holdings: https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ftx-customers-in-mainla...
[deleted]
The Larry David and Steph Curry ads are pretty tame, IMHO, but the Tom Brady ads are over the top extreme and directly connect his persona and fame to push FTX. It is extremely easy to see how effective these ads would have been to induce FOMO and cause many average people to "get in", and I think if a jury sees these videos back to back, they will be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs.