5 ms·
I am not usually one to defend celebrities, but this is absurd. A celebrity spokesperson is essentially no different than a contractor or consultant for a compa
by ecshafer 3y ago
I am not usually one to defend celebrities, but this is absurd. A celebrity spokesperson is essentially no different than a contractor or consultant for a company, just more high profile. Its not like Larry David and Tom Brady were given a run down of their books and internal processes. You might as well go over the every caterer they ever hired or the people they hired to clean their offices.
Meanwhile the investors in FTX almost assuredly had some idea on their internal processes and would have been aware of the lack of chief compliance officer.
- richbell 3y ago> You might as well go over the every caterer they ever hired or the people they hired to clean their offices. There's a significant difference between a caterer and a high-profile celebrity endorsing something. You don't think there are people who joined FTX as a result of these promotions? While I like Larry David, he has no business promoting financial products to consumers. In fact, I think it should be illegal for celebrities or "influencers" to promote any kind of financial products.
- ecshafer 3y agoI dont think there is a difference between the two groups, no. My mind, when i see a celebrity endorsing a product, puts them clearly into the role of someone selling their product for money. Does some model have more business selling cocacola than larry david selling ftx? Larry david is a pretty wealthy guy, i wouldnt be surprised if hes done his due dilligence on finance and talks to advisors on the matter regularly. While a model might not actually know the health implications of drinking coke, and may not drink it personally.
- ryanklee 3y agoI'm very confused by the juxtaposition of your top-level comment and this one. They seem to be saying exactly opposite things.
- ndriscoll 3y agoThey both seem to be saying the same thing to me. It's an actor in a commercial; they're acting. They're not giving you friendly advice. Now one can argue that it should be illegal for anyone to advertise for a product or be paid to say nice things about it (like the smiling guy wearing a lab coat while the screen says 4/5 dentists recommend whichever toothpaste), but otherwise I don't see why celebrities should be uniquely liable.
- ecshafer 3y agoLarry David isn't giving me financial advice. Larry David is selling his image / voice / comedic talents / acting abilities to FTX. Just like a model or singer or athlete is just selling their image to coke. It makes no sense to go after them
- ryanklee 3y agoBut then this is a principle, and it's got nothing to do with Larry David et al. Further, it has nothing to do with the FTX outcome, since the principle is not about particular outcomes, but general risks. Given that, it makes no sense to go after any of the celebrities in this instance, since they did nothing wrong in particular except violate an abstract principle, not a law or regulation. If no celebrities should ever endorse financial products (not sure I agree with this), then some regulatory body or legislative body should constrain us to that. But to tell you the truth, that strikes me as pretty stupid, since this principle can be applied easily outside of financial concerns. The result, if applied correctly, would be that no celebrity should ever endorse any product whatever, since every product has massive, latent risk that would not be able to be reasonably known by any celebrity. Think recalls. Think contamination. Think unknown drug side effects. Think mechanical failure. Etc. Go after the people who are responsible and who should know, not the incidental agents who just happen to be involved in some tragic fraud or malfeasance of which they knew nothing and could not have been expected to know. Massive misattribution of blame.
- toss1 3y agoOTOH, a significant subset of people do use Social Proof, including celebrity endorsements, as a criteria for purchasing decisions, despite the fact that unless explicitly stated, the endorsement says nothing about any due diligence done by the celeb. So is it the responsibility of the fool who uses social proof without doing their own due diligence, or is it the fault of the celeb accepting payment for the promotional work? If they are just going after the celebs to claw back any earnings, which would be put back in the pot to compensate victims, that seems reasonable. But to go after them as if they were co-conspirators seems quite unjust.
- ryanklee 3y agoI would not be opposed to putting those who do the promotional work on the hook for giving back a percentage of earnings to compensate victims. I do think, however, that the principle would have to be applied more generally and pertain to most if not all promotional work. Practical difficulties aside, this might have the added benefit of highly discouraging celebrities to promote anything. I say benefit, because to my mind it's vacuous, tasteless, and toxic for celebrities to promote products. This goes to podcasters and YouTubers, as well. If I hear one more otherwise respectable person shill investments into Master Works rather than index funds...
- nfw2 3y agoBut Larry David explicitly did not recommend FTX. He got paid to say he didn’t like it in a comedy sketch. I don’t see how anyone with any knowledge of Larry would reasonably conclude that he is genuinely into crypto after that ad.
- richbell 3y agoIn the commercial, Larry is a contrarian who opposes every great invention starting with the wheel. At the end, he says that he doesn't recommend FTX. It's clearly an endorsement, even if within the commercial he doesn't literally say "In Larry David and this is my favorite crypto currency exchange". Moreover, it's a major promotional video for FTX. He presumably would not have agreed to star in it if he didn't like it (or the money).
- fred_is_fred 3y ago> You might as well go over the every caterer they ever hired or the people they hired to clean their offices. Neither of these options are likely to pay off in a lawsuit. Larry David and Tom Brady however just might settle whether you believe it's right or not.
- wilg 3y agoSeems like these two would have the money to just win the lawsuit.
- mc32 3y agoCelebrities and other influential personae should do their due diligence before becoming a mouthpiece for a product or service -especially an unknown product or service with little track record and if not, at least buy insurance against potential fraud. They give weight to marginal or fraudulent enterprises and give dubious products and services credibility --thus there is some responsibility and if they cannot vet properly then indemnify themselves where someone else through premiums would establish whether it's viable or not.
- wilg 3y agoShould I contact the actor who plays the Progressive lady to make a claim?
- mc32 3y agoAny celebrity or person whos is willing to endorse products and services for large money money should have a counsel whose business is to know how to do these things.
- wilg 3y agoI think they should not.
- mc32 3y agoWe disagree.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- s1artibartfast 3y agoYou are expecting celebrities and their agents to have more investigative power and discretion than the SEC and the DOJ. You have a public company, licensed to operate by a government regulator, and you want to hold paid actors accountable?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Randomizer42 3y ago[dead]
- theptip 3y agoIf they paid multi-million dollar consulting contracts to their PR firm the bankruptcy process will try to claw that back too. Remember, this was customer money. Anything they sent out the door belongs to the customers that are currently out of pocket. This is not investors complaining since their bet went to zero.