Poll of the Day > larry david and others sued in a class action lawsuit over FTX crypto promotion

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/ftx-lawsuit-larry-david-tom-brady-stephen-curry-crypto-1235434627/

they had ads during the super bowl and shit, but FTX is now bankrupt. lol!

those commercials were so disingenuous and they pissed me off so bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH5-rSxilxo

right on, glad he's getting sued. pretty goofy that these guys got suckered (paid big) into this.
https://youtu.be/mTpPaCJPVP0

Technically Larry said not to buy it in the comercial.

technically larry was playing a bit and reading a script given to him by the company who was paying him to endorse them by making them look as revolutionary as the wheel

it's definitely very cringe watching Larry David go along with a very goofy script that barely makes any fucking sense for a few bad puns/jokes

#LeaveLarryAlone

Monopoman posted...

Technically Larry said not to buy it in the comercial.

This. Larry was right. It's your own fault if you thought you were smarter than Larry. He told you exactly what you needed to hear in that commercial, and you crypto bros had to go and "prove him wrong"!

Does this mean I can sue John Cena if I buy a Honda vehicle and it breaks down? That bastard cashed a check to narrate the ad, he owes me for that lemon!

if hondas are a ponzi scheme go right ahead!

like this isn't equivalent to one honda crash, this is equivalent to all hondas everywhere suddenly stop working and will never work again

If we want to sue some advertisers let's sue drug companies: putting bad - or at least questionable - medical information on TV with the net result of hugely increasing drug costs due to the need to cover the advertising budget.

I'm not so concerned about people who lost their money investing in a risky product. And I don't blame Larry David.

wait, why are actors responsible for the commercials they do?

Lokarin posted...

wait, why are actors responsible for the commercials they do?

Do you not know what the word endorse means?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Does this mean I can sue John Cena if I buy a Honda vehicle and it breaks down? That bastard cashed a check to narrate the ad, he owes me for that lemon!

I think it's different? Honda is a legitimate company that makes legitimate product. Crypto scams are not legitimate product. It probably depends on how deep they are and how much they know. The ones who own some coin before it goes public and immediately sell their holdings the moment the price go up know what they are doing.

I'm honestly curious about the legality of it given that I'd say what over 90% of these cryptos are scams? People pushing these things should know they are promoting a scam at this point if they do even a little bit of research on the product they are putting their name to. I don't understand how people still fall for it. After bitcoin existed what purpose do any of these others serve?

Steph curry should be getting sued too?

anyway I love Larry David but I would be less inclined to sue actors for this than I would be to sue the finance YouTubers shilling this Ponzi scheme

agesboy posted...

like this isn't equivalent to one honda crash, this is equivalent to all hondas everywhere suddenly stop working and will never work again

My point is more that there's a very questionable line between suing people responsible for something and suing someone for doing a commercial for those people.

If Larry David is actually directly involved with FTX (as a member or policy maker) or was directly profiting from it as a pyramid scheme (ie, investing early, driving up value, then divesting), then sure, hold him legally responsible. But if all he did was literally cash a check and then show up to read some lines for an ad, it's a huge leap to say he should be held responsible in any way.

ZangsBeard posted...

Do you not know what the word endorse means?

was it an endorsement or just a commercial?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

My point is more that there's a very questionable line between suing people responsible for something and suing someone for doing a commercial for those people.

If Larry David is actually directly involved with FTX (as a member or policy maker) or was directly profiting from it as a pyramid scheme (ie, investing early, driving up value, then divesting), then sure, hold him legally responsible. But if all he did was literally cash a check and then show up to read some lines for an ad, it's a huge leap to say he should be held responsible in any way.

But you're comparing legitimate product from a well known company producing a well known line of product no reasonable person would find suspicious to some unknown ass holes making an illegitimate product in a line of products known almost exclusively for being scams.

You're making an absolutely absurd comparison and I'm actually interested in seeing how this pans out in court.

BlackScythe0 posted...

But you're comparing legitimate product from a well known company producing a well known line of product no reasonable person would find suspicious to some unknown a******s making an illegitimate product in a line of products known almost exclusively for being scams.

The issue, though, is that you can't really hold people hired to act in commercials for a product/service responsible for researching it well enough to be responsible for how that commercial misleads the public. Acting in a commercial isn't a formal endorsement based on any sort of qualifications, it just means they did a few hours of acting for a paycheque.

Now, I could potentially see the actors in question suing FTX for defamation if their images suffer for the extent to which the service they advertised turned out to be terrible. I'd be surprised if that isn't precluded by their contracts, though.

Lokarin posted...

was it an endorsement or just a commercial?

So the answer is no. Got it.

ZangsBeard posted...

So the answer is no. Got it.

So, like, does the old guy in viagra commercials get sued if viagra doesn't the work?

Lokarin posted...

So, like, does the old guy in viagra commercials get sued if viagra doesn't the work?

Just accept you dont know what endorsement actually means.

Heres a hint; why didnt they just hire some old random actor to do those commercials for a lot less money?

ZangsBeard posted...

Just accept you dont know what endorsement actually means.

Heres a hint; why didnt they just hire some old random actor to do those commercials for a lot less money?

Because the presence of a celebrity adds more weight to the commercial

meh I think John Cena plugging Honda is stupid too

only americans have the drug ads on TV problem lol. that's a you problem guys.

BlackScythe0 posted...

But you're comparing legitimate product from a well known company producing a well known line of product no reasonable person would find suspicious to some unknown ass holes making an illegitimate product in a line of products known almost exclusively for being scams.

Except he wasn't an unknown asshole, he was on Forbes billionaires under 30 list and Fortune was calling him the next Warren Buffett. This wasn't some random guy shilling crypto on Instagram, he raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from companies like Softbank and Sequoia Capital, companies that were certainly better qualified to judge what was going on than random actors in a commercial.

This was essentially another Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes deal where companies who really should have known better threw money at a someone without doing a shread of due diligence which gave the whole thing an air of legitimacy.

rjsilverthorn posted...

Except he wasn't an unknown asshole, he was on Forbes billionaires under 30 list and Fortune was calling him the next Warren Buffett. This wasn't some random guy shilling crypto on Instagram, he raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from companies like Softbank and Sequoia Capital, companies that were certainly better qualified to judge what was going on than random actors in a commercial.

This was essentially another Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes deal where companies who really should have known better threw money at a someone without doing a shread of due diligence which gave the whole thing an air of legitimacy.

Straight up I don't know the whole story behind this, I just know cryptos coming out today are all scams. My random ass hole is more of a Honda has been around since 1948, this guy might have scammed some rich people too that doesn't make him any less random in my book honestly. It's not the first time rich people have let a con man trick them.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Straight up I don't know the whole story behind this

It is actually a pretty interesting story and the more news that comes out the crazier the whole thing gets.

ZangsBeard posted...

Do you not know what the word endorse means?

that's not how acting in a commercial works

Hard_Light posted...

that's not how acting in a commercial works

Another person who doesn't know what endorsement means. Dang, I didn't expect that.

an advertisement is a public promotion of a thing

an endorsement is a public approval of a thing

they are not mutually exclusive

I'm sure you think you've said something that matters.

It didn't. lol

Why does Larry David need to be doing crypto commercials anyway? Doesn't he have a net worth of like a billion?

ZangsBeard posted...

I'm sure you think you've said something that matters.

It didn't. lol

tell us you don't know the difference between an advertisement and an endorsement without admitting you don't know

yeah we know you don't, now you're gonna respond with something you think is witty because you have to have the last word no matter what despite it making you look like a big ole goof

here's a little trick to recognizing the difference between the two: nike signed a contract with kevin durant to endorse their products while not being seen with any non-nike or nike adjacent brands. that is an endorsement

ftx paid larry davis only to read a script and act in their commercial, that is an advertisement

one can be the other, such as kevin durant just being a large advertisement for nike, but this does not make them mutually exclusive, since you can endorse without advertising, and advertise without endorsing. i.e, acting in a commercial

unless larry david explicitly said he endorses them, (which must be disclosed according to the ftc) then he didn't endorse them. he merely advertised for them for a paycheck.

nighty nighty zangy~

More excessive yammering. lol

I'm leaning team helly on this one.

SoreChasm posted...

I'm leaning team helly on this one.

Cool. Doesnt matter. But cool.

Very cool.

Heh.

Heheh.

"Philion" called this months ago in a YouTube documentary when he laid out his conspiracy theory that The Bored Apes NFT was a racist troll by 4chan.

He said these celebrities flaunting their NFTs would be sued for not disclosing that they got them as gifts from someone else. An NDA is not an excuse to break the law.