In recent years, the rapid expansion of the Web3 field has not only brought about the integration of technology and finance, but also aroused a wave of legal supervision around the world. From the craze of NFT projects to Dogecoin being pushed to the top of the topic, blockchain star projects continue to enter the public eye. However, behind these shining, the shadows of compliance and law are approaching. Recently, the news that former NBA superstar Shaquille O'Neal is facing a class action lawsuit for promoting NFT projects Astrals and Galaxy tokens has once again revealed to us the complex legal risks in the Web3 world. This article will deeply analyze the legal issues behind this case and explore the compliance challenges that celebrities may face when promoting the cryptocurrency field.
I. O'Neal Case: Settlement Agreement and Undetermined Legal Boundaries
This year, Shaquille O'Neal faced a class action lawsuit in the Florida federal court for his active promotion of Astrals NFT and Galaxy tokens on social media. According to public court documents, O'Neill and the company behind Astrals have agreed to pay $11 million for a settlement, which will be used to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees and compensate affected NFT and token buyers. While the settlement resolves the immediate risk of litigation, it also draws our attention to a deeper question: Are these NFTs and tokens securities? The applicability of U.S. securities laws remains a focus of such cases. Under the Securities Act of 1933, any investment contract involving the investment of public funds and the expectation of profit from the efforts of others may be considered a security. In the Astrals case, did investors buy NFTs or Galaxy tokens for financial returns? Did O'Neill and the project fail to clearly disclose the risks of the project in their promotion? The answers to these questions directly affect the legal status of NFTs and tokens. However, the settlement means that the issue has not been judicially determined, but ended with a compromise between the two parties. In this way, the legal definition of whether NFTs are securities remains unresolved, and it also buries uncertain risks for similar projects in the future.
Second, the legal and moral responsibilities of celebrity endorsements
The phenomenon of celebrities endorsing cryptocurrency projects is not new, but in recent years, it has attracted widespread attention from the public and regulators because of fines for similar behavior by well-known figures such as Kim Kardashian. For celebrities, the promotion of cryptocurrency and NFT projects is both an opportunity and a trap: on the one hand, they use their huge influence to gain wide exposure to the projects and attract a large number of investors; on the other hand, if these endorsed projects have compliance risks, then these endorsers may face charges of market manipulation, misleading propaganda, and unregistered securities.
In O'Neal's case, the class action lawsuit in Florida accused him of failing to clearly state the relevant risks in his promotion and even intentionally misleading the public. Although the settlement agreement avoids direct legal penalties against O'Neill personally, it still rings the alarm bell for all celebrities and project parties involved in the Web3 field. For those seemingly glamorous promotional activities, if there is a conflict of interest behind them and they fail to disclose it truthfully, celebrities will face compliance responsibilities and a serious crisis of public trust.
3. Does Musk have the same risks as Dogecoin?
Similar to O'Neill, Elon Musk has attracted widespread attention for his frequent promotion of Dogecoin on social media. As one of the most influential people in the world, Musk's tweets can directly affect the price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies. In 2023, Musk was accused of market manipulation by some investors due to the price fluctuations of Dogecoin and filed a class action lawsuit. However, unlike Astrals and Galaxy tokens, Dogecoin itself is more regarded as a payment tool than a security, so it does not meet traditional securities standards in legal recognition.
The risk of market manipulation always exists. When celebrities post content that could influence investment decisions, regulators will pay close attention to whether they have subjective motives to manipulate the market, especially in the "pump and dump" mode. If a celebrity's public support for a cryptocurrency on social media is found to be for the purpose of selling their own holdings for profit, they are likely to face charges of market manipulation. Although Musk talked about Dogecoin from the perspective of humor and personal interest, his words and deeds undoubtedly set a case reference for future regulation. Especially at a time when the government holds an important position. Aiying has written similar articles before, for details, please read "Faced with allegations of market manipulation and insider trading in Dogecoin, how did Musk get away with it? 》
Fourth,Compliance Outlook for the Future: Heading into the Deep Waters of Regulation
In the past few years, NFTs and cryptocurrencies have attracted a large number of investors due to their innovativeness and potential high returns, but they have also been criticized for their lack of regulation. The charges filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against multiple NFT projects show that regulators are gradually increasing their scrutiny of the industry. The previous article wrote about "Can Trump's re-election bring a real regulatory breakthrough to the crypto industry?" It mentioned that although the regulatory environment may be more flexible, it does not mean that crypto companies can completely get rid of the constraints of the law, especially those projects that still have centralized characteristics, which may still face strict scrutiny.
In the future, Web3 project parties must devote more energy to compliance, especially projects related to public investors. If a token or NFT is deemed a security, its issuance must comply with securities laws, including registration requirements and transparent disclosure. For celebrity endorsers, promoting any Web3 asset requires careful scrutiny of compliance to avoid legal liability for failure to disclose business relationships or potential interests.
Case link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.647550/gov.uscourts.flsd.647550.1.0.pdf
Jasper
Hui Xin
Kikyo
Aaron
Clement
Jixu
Alex