7 ms·
Tom Brady, Giselle Bündchen, Larry David Sued in FTX Class Action Suit
- paulpauper 4y agoLarry David in an ironic twist did warn people
- oneoff786 4y agoWould be an incredible defense in court
- influx 4y agoWould be a great curb meta episode.
- mkhpalm 4y agoYou say that in reference to this FTX commercial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjKOZdenf2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjKOZdenf2E
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIt's awesome that he was in their commercial, taking their money, without endorsing them.
- richardatlarge 4y agoThat’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
- richardatlarge 4y agoNo 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
- justinator 4y agoIt 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!
- SilasX 4y agoNo, the ad narrator and framing suggested that. His character within the ad advised against FTX.
- richardatlarge 4y agoYeah, 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
- ALittleLight 4y agoI'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?
- batch12 4y ago> 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.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoThey could sue FTX… oh wait
- jtbayly 4y agoNot wrong for one and not the other. The non-celebs just don’t have enough money to make it worth it to sue them.
- ALittleLight 4y agoWould 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.
- jtbayly 4y agoNo. 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.
- UIUC_06 4y ago.. 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.
- williamtrask 4y agoThe 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.
- fasthands9 4y agoI 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.
- nradov 4y agoThe 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.
- fasthands9 4y agoYou 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
- someguy212 4y agoSo now every "brand ambassador" must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation they receive in exchange for promotions? Sign me up.
- toomuchtodo 4y agohttps://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001a-influencer-guide-508_1.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/10...
- chayesfss 4y ago
- someguy212 4y agoI can assure you I used the term in quotes because they are a plague on society.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> 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.
- colechristensen 4y agoLawsuits 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.
- 737min 4y agoThe 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-mainland-china-make-up-8-per-cent-of-total-a-court-filing-shows-defying-beijing-s-crypto-ban/ https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ftx-customers-in-mainla...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sigzero 4y agoI 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.
- thunky 4y agoYou'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.
- carewell 4y agoI 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.
- thunky 4y agoI 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.
- edmundsauto 4y agoThe 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.
- theknocker 4y ago
- themihai 4y agoBut celebrities endorse gambling so how is this any different? Do people really think they are winners if they play online "slot" games?
- askafriend 4y agoI think this just further emphasizes Larry David's genius. His involvement is not like the others.
- tayistay 4y agoIt’s the same. He provided his genius to push the message that the stupid fraudulent crypto exchange was as significant as the wheel, etc.
- askafriend 4y agoAfter 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.
- breput 4y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEUjBx_yXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEUjBx_yXg has many of these celebrity ads, included in full, towards the middle of the video. 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rektide 4y agoI 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.
- unityByFreedom 4y agoLol 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.
- cornholio 4y agoI 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.
- s1k3 4y agoThis 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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> 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.
- bhawks 4y agoSo 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.
- squeaky-clean 4y agoAgreed. I think the lawsuit is dumb, but if you're going to sue the actors you need to sue NBC as well.
- itisit 4y agoCan 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- arealaccount 4y agoHonestly its the NFL that should be liable. They are the ones running ads with seemingly little due diligence.
- indigodaddy 4y agoThis lawsuit will get thrown out in a hot minute in my expectation.
- orsenthil 4y agoWhy is Steph Curry left out?
- gorgoiler 4y agoThe 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.
- brutusborn 4y agoDoesn'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.
- gorgoiler 4y agoThat’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.
- keithalewis 4y agoLarry David was the Joe Isuzu of crypto.
- ralph84 4y agoLet'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.
- 0F5 4y agoIs 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.
- jeffypoo 4y agoThey are just going where there is money.