[mbreese]

It’s not the ad agencies or spokespeople that are liable if those disclaimers are removed — it’s the primary company. The ad agency gets paid to produce the ad and help place it on media channels. If there is a legally required warning, that’s up to the customer to provide. The celebrity endorser is a paid performer and nothing more. Their reputation could take a hit from being involved in the ads, but that’s not a legal concern. That said, I do wish them luck in trying to market anything else.

In this case, the customer doesn’t think they are covered by SEC rules because they aren’t trading in securities. The claim being that crypto isn’t a security but rather a commodity, which have fewer regulatory restrictions. However, that’s all about to be tested in court at a massive scale.

[Uehreka]

Sounds awesome! Punish the people benefitting most from the fraud (the actual fraudsters as opposed to the people being paid a commission to advertise) and provide an incentive for them to police their ad agencies and influencers to not let it happen in the future!

Crypto companies are absolutely securities companies, so it’s just a a matter of time until the hammer comes down. I’m often cynical about the ability of government to crack down on businesses, but in this case it really feels like a lot of crypto folks are miles out over their skis in terms of the kinds of “mind games” they think they can play on the justice system.