Opinion | Celebrity endorsers should be liable for financial schemes

Comment

Regarding the Dec. 15 front-page article “Investors say stars who hyped FTX should pay up”:

Why shouldn’t celebrity endorsers pay for touting possibly speculative investments such as cryptocurrency to their fans? Those endorsers, including quarterback Tom Brady, were paid millions to lend the sheen of credibility to the investment. To allow them to escape any financial or other liability means bilked buyers have no recourse if the companies they tout, such as FTX, run dry of cash.

Under the Federal Trade Commission’s guides for endorsements, the test is rightly very protective of consumers: whether they “are likely to believe” the endorsement “reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser.” Nor does the endorser necessarily need to be an expert in the field, as surely no one thought Mr. Brady, a football legend, had expertise that extended to esoteric financial transactions.

The article noted precedent under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, where I represented retirees bilked of their savings through fake mortgage sales that the Illinois courts called a classic Ponzi scheme; both actors, Lloyd Bridges and George Hamilton, paid to settle claims that their commercials induced reliance on what proved to be anything-but-safe investments.

Whether celebrities are hired to tout cryptocurrency or fake mortgages, our courts shouldn’t allow them to profit through false advertising…

Read more…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *