Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather Jr. Sued for Alleged Crypto Scam (financialpost.com) 41
Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather Jr. were sued for allegedly scamming investors in a cryptocurrency called EthereumMax. From a report: The reality television star and ex-boxing champion were paid to hype the blockchain-based digital tokens to their fans, "causing investors to purchase these losing investments at inflated prices," according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court. Former Boston Celtic Paul Pierce was also named as a defendant in the suit. Kardashian was called out in September by a U.K. financial regulator for luring her 250 million Instagram followers into the "cryptobubble with delusions of quick riches." Mayweather, one of his sport's most recognizable personalities, has previously run afoul of regulators for promoting cryptocurrency investments. He was fined by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018 for touting initial coin offerings on social media without disclosing that he'd been paid to do so.
Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)
Stupid people losing money. Whatever shall we do?
Next up, the sale of tulips has suddenly surged. Is this the next great investment?
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Informative)
Coincidence? I think not!.
Re: (Score:2)
To follow up, people who worship "celebrities" are less intelligent [biomedcentral.com]
Oh noes! Kim Kardashian will now get sued for making people dumber!
Re: (Score:3)
But Floyd Mayweather told me to. If you can't trust investment advice from a washed up boxer and whatever the hell Kim Kardashian is, who can you turn to?
Re: (Score:3)
But Floyd Mayweather told me to. If you can't trust investment advice from a washed up boxer and whatever the hell Kim Kardashian is, who can you turn to?
It's only half insane.
The value of a celebrity endorsement is that by vouching for it they're putting their credibility on the line. If Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds endorsed a particular piece of software I'd probably pay attention.
Of course, this requires a celebrity with some credibility, and I'm not sure Mayweather or Kardashian qualify. Similarly, make sure the celebrity is still in the prime of their career. There's nothing like the prospect of fading anonymity that makes people realize the monetary va
Re: (Score:2)
I think I was 8 or so years old when the commercial came on TV that started with "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV" and then went on to sell some OTC drug. I thought it was the silliest statement I had seen on TV, and that includes the Saturday morning cartoons and The Three Stooges.
Buying crypto because a Kardashian says so is much much sillier. Torvalds or Gates commenting on software is at least them speaking from domain specific knowledge that they actually have (Torvalds more so than Gates these
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true if the celebrity in question keeps in their own lane.
You probably won't trust Bill Gates or Linux Torvalds if they were touting say, hand lotion.
The problem is, most celebrities don't, and people worship them the same. Like how people get their vaccine information from sports athletes
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true if the celebrity in question keeps in their own lane.
You probably won't trust Bill Gates or Linux Torvalds if they were touting say, hand lotion.
The problem is, most celebrities don't, and people worship them the same. Like how people get their vaccine information from sports athletes. Or the Kardashians. I've never watched them, but I assume if I did, they'd have fashion advice that would be appropriate, but that's about it. I'd probably not take dieting advice from them.
Kinda, there's two kind of endorsements.
First is the expert reference, such as Gates or Torvalds vouching for a piece of software or even a actor/actress endorsing a skincare product. They're putting their reputation on the line and they know what they're talking about.
Second is basically vouching for someone (which is most paid celebrity endorsements). Such as Gates or Torvalds vouching for a skincare product. No one expects that they understand a good vs bad skincare product, but it is expected they're no
Re: (Score:2)
The value of a celebrity endorsement is that by vouching for it they're putting their credibility on the line.>
I'm not so sure that's really the case: celebrities "endorse" a lot of crap and it seems to have no affect on their credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
2022 Ouija Board says, "Old News: Crypto HODLing. New Hotness: Litigation Financing".
My new app, Suer, will let you exchange your crypto for a share of any class-action settlement fees our team of gig-lawyers may produce (for a small* transaction fee). No way will this go down the toilet!
* "Small" is a relative term. Always invest boldly without any regards for reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid people losing money. Whatever shall we do?
What we do is regulate the dissemination of investment advice to protect naive people. If you are paid to promote an investment, you are required to disclose that. If the investment is a scam, the promotor can be held accountable.
Allowing frauds to cheat naive people makes no more sense than allowing burglars to rob people who forget to lock their doors.
Kim Kardashian getting hit in the ring? (Score:2)
Now that, I'd pay to watch.
Good (Score:2)
That is all.
Let's hold some influencers responsible (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality television star and ex-boxing champion were paid to hype the blockchain-based digital tokens to their fans.
I found the article headline a little misleading. At first, it sounded like these two created the scam. Rather, it sounds like the scammers just used influencers to market the scam. Nevertheless, this is happening far too frequently. Influencers get paid to market anything, and they rarely ever check to see what they're marketing is legit or not. Case-in-point: Fyre Festival [wikipedia.org] was a scam with nothing going for it, but when it paid to plaster the color orange all across the Instagram accounts of Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid, Hailey Baldwin, Emily Ratajkowski, and many others, suddenly it exploded in popularity. After the entire thing crashed and burned, and people were looking to point fingers, all the influencers just smiled their cute smiles, apologized, kept their cash, and were not held accountable for the fraudulent postings. Meanwhile, many, many people lost serious money in the stunt.
I hope the FTC throws the book at these two.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a totally separate matter from the crypto operation doing a rug-pull, no way they knew that was going to happen.
Yes they should probably be fined but they are not responsible for investors money disappearing, unless they were part owners of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
An actor paid to act in an advertisement is not the same thing as an influential celebrity using their status to vouch for something.
Re: (Score:1)
An actor paid to act in an advertisement is not the same thing as an influential celebrity using their status to vouch for something.
It is literally exactly the same thing. No one (especially at that level) endorses things like these for the fun of it.
Sorry the bag holders bought it. Not the actors fault.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's fair to hold actors (which is all influencers are) responsible for merely being in ads about something, that is literally what they do is to promote stuff for money.
You may not think it is fair, but the law has a different opinion [broadcastlawblog.com].
First off, these people are not actors appearing in ad. Everyone understands what an ad is, and when it is run on a platform - TV, a website, whatever, that is a fixed piece of content created by the advertiser and being run on their dime. Personal promotions are something different - in which the person being paid to promote it often does not disclose it is a paid promotion -- which can be a big problem for the promoter.
For broadcast advertising, the new guidelines make clear that endorsers can themselves be liable for misleading statements made during a product pitch. So a radio announcer paid to try a diet plan or some other product and to report about its results on the air needs to be sure not only that his statements are truthful, but that the “results” claimed are in line with what the advertiser can actually prove for the product through clinical study and research.
In fact, as the linke
Re: (Score:2)
but where do you draw the line. Why not hold Instagram accountable? Let me guess in this case Kim and Floyd used social media as well. But the social media companies are just going to smile and keep all the ad revenues and market data those interactions generated!
I know the answer to why fucking CDA-230 that is essentially a license to abuse the entire nation. Want to fix this shit start by repealing 230!
Re: (Score:2)
When you get paid. Most places have a few other lines too, such as offering medical or engineering advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A promoter hyping something under her/his own identity is not in a paid ad - which is a piece of fixed content created by an advertiser, is being run on some platform, and is required to be clearly identified as an ad.
Unless each time the endorser tweets or otherwise make an endorsement they state that they are being paid for making this claim, it is quite different from an ad - it is a form of fraud. Promoting things for money but hiding that fact puts you in legal jeopardy. The whole new media endorsement
Kardashians LOVE the attention (Score:2)
The Kardashians will milk this lawsuit for all the drama they can. Like Donald Trump, they use controversy to their advantage, getting rich off their own fuckups*. Unless you can tolerate having a microscope and telescope focused on you 24/7, suing Kardashians is a bad idea.
* Donald had a custom Sharpie made to raise money off SharpieGate (Hurricane Dorian weather map).
Now TWO things I never want to hear about (Score:2)
Crypto and Kardashians.
Please make it STOP!!!
Re: (Score:1)
BootiCoin?
Sorry, the worst of TV, crypto, and Web are about to have a slimy orgy here. Somehow I expect cats will be involved.
Re: (Score:2)
haha (Score:1)
Well, now the flood gates are open (Score:1)
Odd, they should be sued (Score:2)
Once again, Darwin triumphs (Score:2)
Anybody credulous enough to take financial advice from a Kardashian and a boxer who has already run afoul of the law got exactly what they deserve.
Should have followed Satoshi (Score:2)
Because you don't want to have a name attached to anything if other people are losing money from something you started.
Tax on stupidity (Score:2)
Just a tax on the priviledge of being able to neo-religiously fawn over some random person touted by mass media - dressed up as an investment. Well, they DID get to "invest" into the scammers' financial well-being, that must count for something. (Pretty much like gambling is a tax on the inability to do maths...)
Scam? Really? (Score:2)
"Crypto scam" sounds like a tautology to me.
Not Disclosing That A Promotion Is Paid Is Illegal (Score:2)
I see a lot of commenters here saying that new media personalities being paid to promote stuff is just the same as appearing in an ad. This is more or less correct (but not entirely) if, like ads are required to do, they make it clear that it is a paid promotion.
Lots of people here seem to be unaware that it is actually illegal to present ads with making it clear that they are ads. That is why paid promotions on search engines have "ad" displayed somewhere. Public personalities promoting stuff for money are