A bunch of “celebrities” are being sued for promoting NFTs.

https://www.pcgamer.com/paris-hilton-and-jimmy-fallon-are-being-sued-for-promoting-nfts/

I’m on my phone, somebody post that grumpy cat “good” meme for me.

TLDR;
Bored apes marketing strategy relied on celebrities being paid to promote them as being cool, but many of said celebrities failed to disclose that they were being paid to promote them.
I got you fam.
markup_1000000159.png
 
Clown world, "celebrities" promoting .jpg's lol
Well they sort of had degrees long apprenticeships that started when they were 5 or so.

But the blank canvas’s “Take their money and run” is brilliant.
They were commissioned to do a trio of pieces on modern day capitalism and it does so perfectly.
 
I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits.
And we still live in a country with due process. Gwyneth Paltrow must be given a chance to tell her side. /s

Actually I would either plead insanity because it's an easy sell to a jury, or bribe a forensic to testify her twitter was hacked by a crypto scammer, because that's seriously how it reads. Pages upon pages of this shit.

SmartSelect_20221214-132130_Chrome.jpg

SmartSelect_20221214-131440_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits.

I'm not sure where I stand on frivolous yet also cathartic lawsuits.
Is it frivolous though? If one of your favorite reviewers was raving about how awesome a product was without disclaming that they were given the item for free or paid to promote it, would there not be a backlash?
I am pretty sure that most media outlets require that people declare if they are being paid to promote something.
 
Is it frivolous though? If one of your favorite reviewers was raving about how awesome a product was without disclaming that they were given the item for free or paid to promote it, would there not be a backlash?
I am pretty sure that most media outlets require that people declare if they are being paid to promote something.
There's a massive difference between a commercial and a review or a spokesperson and a reviewer though. This is frivolous, I hope these shills take some well-earned reputation wounds from this at the very least.

They probably won't, the worship of celebrity is too strong.

Edit: Some of this stuff would be illegal in Canada for sure (embedding ads without notifying) but I have no idea what US federal and state laws would apply.
 
I'm not a fan of celebrities but if you're dumb enough to listen to those people then you deserve it. They're celebrities, not educated people looking for what's best for you. They sell out as quickly as you're able to buy an NFT. Speaking of people who promoted NFT's, where are those posters that were telling me that I couldn't understand that NFTs/blockchain are the future. I'm looking for another "told you so" moment.
 
There's a massive difference between a commercial and a review or a spokesperson and a reviewer though. This is frivolous, I hope these shills take some well-earned reputation wounds from this at the very least.
Of course, it's frivolous. I'm not a fan of people scamming money off of celebrities.

Are people going to sue Keanu Reeves for being in an ad for Corn Flakes, because they didn't like the taste of corn flakes? ...Scarlett Johansson for an Alexa ad because their Echo Dot ordered the wrong toppings on their pizza?

The law is about facts. People need to take emotions out of lawsuits.

This is just one reason why things are as expensive as things are in our country. Lawyers get involved in too much and raise the cost of everything. They get rich off these entitled, whiney persons, while the system suffers. Trickle down effects.
 
Last edited:
Are people going to sue Keanu Reeves for being in an ad for Corn Flakes, because they didn't like the taste of corn flakes? ...Scarlett Johansson for an Alexa ad because their Echo Dot ordered the wrong toppings on their pizza?
I thought you were going to mention how nearly all American made cereals have an unhealthy amount beyond the legal limit of Rouchup chemical.
The law is about facts. People need to take emotions out of lawsuits.

This is just one reason why things are as expensive as things are in our country. Lawyers get involved in too much and raise the cost of everything. They get rich off these entitled, whiney persons, while the system suffers. Trickle down effects.
I think people who used their influence to push people into scams do bare some responsibility. Not enough for a lawsuit to the celebrity but there should be a way to deter these people from being exempt when the product or organization they're backing turns out to be scamming people out of money. There's a reason why nearly every commercial has a celebrity in them. I think there should be laws to prevent celebrity endorsement to begin with. It's clearly a very powerful tool to trick idiots into giving them money.
 
I was one of the naive folk who thought this might actually hold some value.
 
Of course, it's frivolous. I'm not a fan of people scamming money off of celebrities.

Are people going to sue Keanu Reeves for being in an ad for Corn Flakes, because they didn't like the taste of corn flakes? ...Scarlett Johansson for an Alexa ad because their Echo Dot ordered the wrong toppings on their pizza?

The law is about facts. People need to take emotions out of lawsuits.

This is just one reason why things are as expensive as things are in our country. Lawyers get involved in too much and raise the cost of everything. They get rich off these entitled, whiney persons, while the system suffers. Trickle down effects.
Those aren't remotely the same thing as this, an ad is very obviously a paid endorsement and FTC guidelines even spell this out. Speaking of FTC guidelines this is what they say about disclosing paid social media endorsements:

"If you endorse a product through social media, your endorsement message should make it obvious when you have a relationship (“material connection”) with the brand. A “material connection” to the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or a financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you free or discounted products or services."
 
I was one of the naive folk who thought this might actually hold some value.
Plenty of NFT projects have held and easily 10x their value since mint, if you are down then you got into the wrong projects, or didnt sell and take profit when you should have cause you thought it would just keep going up up and up!
 
Of course, it's frivolous. I'm not a fan of people scamming money off of celebrities.
No you are apparently a fan of celebrities scamming money off of people.
Are people going to sue Keanu Reeves for being in an ad for Corn Flakes, because they didn't like the taste of corn flakes? ...Scarlett Johansson for an Alexa ad because their Echo Dot ordered the wrong toppings on their pizza?
An ad is an ad, taking an undisclosed payment for an endorsement is a scam, and they should get at least massive fines, and having to pay reparations to those who bought NFTs based on their endorsement.
The law is about facts. People need to take emotions out of lawsuits.
The fact is that they got paid for promoting it and they never disclosed that.
This is just one reason why things are as expensive as things are in our country.
Things are expensive because CEOs decide their own pay.
Lawyers get involved in too much and raise the cost of everything.
I agree that lawyers are another overpaid group, but they are not the cause of the problem they are symptoms.
They get rich off these entitled, whiney persons, while the system suffers. Trickle down effects.
They get rich off huge corporations defending their scammy scams, the most massive law firms are all about this. Representing the little guy against big dogs is rarely profitable, just because you hear of a few successful class actions a year, those are the exceptions.

The prolbem is not the people suing companies for being pricks, it is the companies for being pricks in the first place. This is typical victim blaming.
 
GOOD! Being that stupid, ignorant or gullible to promote CRAP because you are greedy should hurt. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of celebrities but if you're dumb enough to listen to those people then you deserve it. They're celebrities, not educated people looking for what's best for you. They sell out as quickly as you're able to buy an NFT. Speaking of people who promoted NFT's, where are those posters that were telling me that I couldn't understand that NFTs/blockchain are the future. I'm looking for another "told you so" moment.
Utility NFTs are still the future not the beanie baby NFTS. I didn't join the nft train until the nfts already crashed and I warned everybody about the current crypto crash though.
I'm still saying @ 10k bitcoin starting buying ethereum.

Regardless of it being sue worthy the celebrities need to face at least public scrutiny though
 
Plenty of NFT projects have held and easily 10x their value since mint, if you are down then you got into the wrong projects, or didnt sell and take profit when you should have cause you thought it would just keep going up up and up!
Those won't last long. If any NFT's are holding value then that's because people forgot about those.
GOOD! Being that stupid, ignorant or gullible to promote CRAP because you are greedy should hurt. :LOL:
Yea, that's not how things work out. You get emails, robo calls, and wonder why they aren't going out of business? There are enough idiots out there to fund these scammers, and that means plenty of annoyances for the rest of us. Even the best of us will get tricked by these scammers as they find new ways to take money from you. These people should be put out of business, if it wasn't for the fear that 1/4 of people in the world will lose their jobs. Not that I care about people losing their jobs but we seem to endorse scamming, like it was a right.

Utility NFTs are still the future not the beanie baby NFTS. I didn't join the nft train until the nfts already crashed and I warned everybody about the current crypto crash though.
I'm still saying @ 10k bitcoin starting buying ethereum.

Regardless of it being sue worthy the celebrities need to face at least public scrutiny though
There are no utility NFTs. The idea of creating a common ledger without a central authority is never going to work, simply because at some point the government will get involved and the whole point was to avoid the government to begin with. Rather than fixing the corruption within our governments, we invent new ways to avoid them. To this day there's nothing that the governments aren't already involved in, and that includes NFTs. Also, NFT's and the blockchain will never work due to the amount of energy is needed to run this system. There's a reason crypto died because everyone must go proof of stake.
 
Yea, that's not how things work out. You get emails, robo calls, and wonder why they aren't going out of business? There are enough idiots out there to fund these scammers, and that means plenty of annoyances for the rest of us. Even the best of us will get tricked by these scammers as they find new ways to take money from you. These people should be put out of business, if it wasn't for the fear that 1/4 of people in the world will lose their jobs. Not that I care about people losing their jobs but we seem to endorse scamming, like it was a right.

Yeah, no shit sherlock...should have used /s I guess.
 
An ad is an ad, taking an undisclosed payment for an endorsement is a scam
Did Keanu Reeves and Scarlett Johansson disclose that they were taking payments for being in the ad? Of course not! Yet people bought the products, because they were in the ad.

Advertising would cease to exist if any person appearing in an ad could be sued.

Do you not have free will? People have the freedom to buy or not to buy an item. It's their choice. People need to have personal responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming others.
 
Last edited:
Do you not have free will? People have the freedom to buy or not to buy an item. It's their choice. People need to have personal responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming others.

Yet, this thread is full of folks who have no standing in any lawsuit brought against these people but still think their opinion matters...
 
Did Keanu Reeves and Scarlett Johansson disclose that they were taking payments for being in the ad? Of course not! Yet people bought the products, because they were in the ad.

Advertising would cease to exist if any person appearing in an ad could be sued.

Do you not have free will? People have the freedom to buy or not to buy an item. It's their choice. People need to have personal responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming others.
Like I said in my previous post the FTC who regulates the advertising industry spells it out that appearing in an ad doesn't require disclosure because it's commonly understood that it's a paid job, posting on social media promoting things does require explicit disclosure of any financial incentives because it wouldn't be obvious otherwise.
 
if you are advertising, using your influence promote, it should be disclosed. Its clear on TV, not so clear on social media. i am split on the topic, i like transparency but, also if you believe gwyneth paltrow or joe rogan you get what you get. they only exist to promote. themselves or others. they only exist to sell you something. when they are out of things to sell, they are up for the highest bidder. if they already got you, they can sell you almost anything. its very rare you are not being sold something.
 
if you are advertising, using your influence promote, it should be disclosed. Its clear on TV, not so clear on social media. i am split on the topic, i like transparency but, also if you believe gwyneth paltrow or joe rogan you get what you get. they only exist to promote. themselves or others. they only exist to sell you something. when they are out of things to sell, they are up for the highest bidder. if they already got you, they can sell you almost anything. its very rare you are not being sold something.
At the same time, one could argue those who believe Joe and Gwyneth to be genuine in what they say and promote, are among the more "vulnerable" people in society. If you can successfully argue that, then there are a slew of existing laws designed to protect the mentally delayed from false or predatory advertising practices.
 
At the same time, one could argue those who believe Joe and Gwyneth to be genuine in what they say and promote, are among the more "vulnerable" people in society. If you can successfully argue that, then there are a slew of existing laws designed to protect the mentally delayed from false or predatory advertising practices.
Possibly, but as it stands there are FTC rules about disclosure requirements when you are endorsing/influencing a product when you are in any way in a financial relationship with said company/product, e.g. if you're trying to sell your Goop crap you need to let people know that it's YOUR garbage you're trying to hock and not just stuff that you find "absolutely refreshing and great to use!"
 
if you are advertising, using your influence promote, it should be disclosed. Its clear on TV, not so clear on social media. i am split on the topic, i like transparency but, also if you believe gwyneth paltrow or joe rogan you get what you get. they only exist to promote. themselves or others. they only exist to sell you something. when they are out of things to sell, they are up for the highest bidder. if they already got you, they can sell you almost anything. its very rare you are not being sold something.
I think we have too many laws and regulations that are designed to protect stupid people from their own stupidity that mainly just end up causing problems for other people but I am in favor of protecting them from scammers. The morally bankrupt already have enough advantages in our society and I'd rather have stupid people winning Darwin awards than getting getting scammed into blowing their life saving on NFTs and becoming a bigger drain on the social system.
 
I get to play with my art work in World of Tanks, just buying a working image is alot more fun.
 
Do you not have free will? People have the freedom to buy or not to buy an item. It's their choice. People need to have personal responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming others.
The reason this happens is because people don't want to use their free will to do a bit of research. We take shortcuts by listening to other people who we deem knowledgeable in order to tell us what to buy and what not to buy. That is often a mistake.
 
Back
Top