California District Judge Michael Fitzgerald It has filed a lawsuit filed against Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather Jr., saying it was unclear whether the plaintiffs had seen Ethereum Max promotional materials from celebrities.
In early October, Kardashian agreed to a $1.26 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over allegations that it promoted EMAX tokens to Instagram followers without disclosing them as paid ads.
EthereumMax down 99.7% from ATH
This period was characterized as the peak of cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Around this time, Bitcoin reached $65,000 and observers were eager to enter the cryptocurrency and hope everything went higher.
This frenzy has resulted in extensive mainstream media coverage, even from outlets that previously did not cover digital assets.
of the project white paperspoke about the development of a DeFi ecosystem that will be released in October 2021, about five months after the token’s launch, and will serve multiple applications, including stablecoins.
“We first launched Ethereum Max (EMAX) with a vision Bridging the gap between community-driven emergence Tokens are the underlying coins of popular cryptocurrencies. ”
EMAX plateaued at $0.000000597636 On May 31, 2021, while the token is still trading, its current price is $0.000000001755, equivalent to a 99.7% loss from the end of May 2021.
A class action lawsuit was filed in January alleging that the Ethereum Max Project colluded with celebrity backers to persuade investors to buy the token.
Plaintiffs further argued that the resulting frenzy of interest drove prices up, at which point the “insiders” ended their position with a classic pump-and-dump scheme.
“Kardashian promoted Ethereum Max in a June 2021 Instagram post, and Mayweather wore the company’s logo on his boxing trunks during a widely-watched match, an investor said. .”
But Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling said the significant reason for dismissing the case boils down to failing to say if or when the promotional material was viewed. He added that the case could be amended and resubmitted.
However, because California’s consumer protection law applies to tangible goods and services, not “intangible goods,” including cryptocurrencies, the judge still found it appropriate to permanently dismiss the lawsuit. I judged.
Sean Masson, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he plans to change the allegations and include “additional facts” that explain the defendants’ “misconduct and liability.”