The FTX celebrity lawsuit is a consolidated class action in Miami federal court accusing Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Stephen Curry, Larry David, Shaquille O’Neal, and roughly a dozen other well-known endorsers of helping sell unregistered securities on the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange. As of mid-2026, most claims against the celebrity defendants have been dismissed. Two claims survive under Florida and Oklahoma securities laws, a handful of defendants have settled, and no trial date has been set.
Who Was Sued
Four days after FTX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022, plaintiff Edwin Garrison filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming Sam Bankman-Fried and a roster of celebrity endorsers.1Classaction.org. Garrison v. Bankman-Fried Class Action Complaint The suit was later folded into a multidistrict litigation, In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation (No. 1:23-md-03076), before U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore.2Claims Journal. FTX Claims Against Curry, Brady, Celebrities
The core group of celebrity and corporate defendants included Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Stephen Curry, Larry David, Shaquille O’Neal, Naomi Osaka, Kevin O’Leary, David Ortiz, Shohei Ohtani, Trevor Lawrence, Udonis Haslem, and the Golden State Warriors, along with a group of social media influencers the complaint labeled “YouTuber Defendants.”3CNBC. FTX Claims Against Steph Curry, Tom Brady, Celebrities4Forbes. Tom Brady and Other A-Listers Fumble FTX Endorsements An amended complaint filed in May 2025 added Major League Baseball, Mercedes F1 Racing, and the advertising firm Dentsu Global.5Moskowitz Law. FTX Promoter and Influencers Class Action
The pay was substantial. According to Michael Lewis’s book Going Infinite, Bankman-Fried agreed to pay Brady $55 million and Bündchen nearly $20 million, each for about 20 hours of work per year over three years.6Yahoo Finance. Bankman-Fried Agreed to Pay Tom Brady $55 Million7People. Tom Brady, Gisele Bundchen Lost Nearly $50 Million in FTX Collapse8Sportico. Tom Brady FTX Sponsorship $55M9SportsPro. Steph Curry Makes Crypto Play With FTX Equity Deal The Golden State Warriors signed a separate multiyear international rights sponsorship valued at roughly $10 million.10CNBC. FTX to Pay Golden State Warriors $10 Million for Global Rights
What the Lawsuit Accused Them of Doing
The plaintiffs argued FTX’s yield-bearing accounts qualified as unregistered securities under the Supreme Court’s Howey test, because investors deposited digital assets, in a common enterprise, expecting profits from the efforts of others. The celebrities’ alleged role was to promote those accounts without disclosing their compensation or doing any due diligence on FTX’s actual business.11Reuters. FTX Founder Bankman-Fried Sued in U.S. Court Over Yield-Bearing Crypto Accounts
The advertising itself became a central piece of the case. Brady and Bündchen appeared in a 2022 commercial in which Brady told friends, “Crypto. FTX. You in?”4Forbes. Tom Brady and Other A-Listers Fumble FTX Endorsements12Variety. FTX Lawsuit: Larry David, Tom Brady, Stephen Curry13Wired. FTX Steph Curry Crypto Ad14iSpot.tv. FTX: Stephen Curry Is Not a Crypto Expert The plaintiffs characterized this messaging as a strategy aimed at consumers who were hesitant about crypto.
The complaint invoked the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Texas Securities Act, civil conspiracy, and Oklahoma securities law.1Classaction.org. Garrison v. Bankman-Fried Class Action Complaint Plaintiffs also pointed to a 2022 Eleventh Circuit ruling that allowed investors to sue individuals who had promoted the BitConnect cryptocurrency online.11Reuters. FTX Founder Bankman-Fried Sued in U.S. Court Over Yield-Bearing Crypto Accounts
The May 2025 Ruling That Reshaped the Case
On May 7, 2025, Judge Moore dismissed 12 of the 14 claims against the celebrity and YouTuber defendants. The court found that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the celebrities knew about Bankman-Fried’s fraud or intended to deceive investors, and that being paid to promote a product does not, by itself, support civil conspiracy liability.3CNBC. FTX Claims Against Steph Curry, Tom Brady, Celebrities
Two claims survived, and they are the ones that matter most for the remaining defendants. Under both the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act and the Oklahoma Securities Act, liability for participating in the sale of unregistered securities does not require proof that the promoter knew about any fraud or intended to deceive anyone. That’s a strict-liability standard. The court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged FTX’s products were securities, that they were unregistered, and that a factual dispute existed over whether the celebrities’ endorsement deals made them agents of FTX.15FindLaw. In Re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation
The dismissed claims were thrown out without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a 582-page amended complaint on May 29, 2025, seeking to hold the celebrity promoters jointly and severally liable for billions of dollars still owed to the FTX investor class.5Moskowitz Law. FTX Promoter and Influencers Class Action
Who Has Settled
A few celebrity defendants have chosen to pay rather than continue fighting.
Shaquille O’Neal was the first, agreeing to a $1.8 million settlement made up of $750,000 in cash and $1.05 million in FTX stock. The deal includes no admission of wrongdoing, bars him from seeking reimbursement from FTX’s bankruptcy estate, and gives him a broad release. Judge Moore granted preliminary approval on July 1, 2025.16CNBC. Shaq Settles FTX Lawsuit for $1.8 Million17Times of India. Shaquille O’Neal Settles for $1.8M in FTX Lawsuit
Former Miami Heat forward Udonis Haslem agreed to settle in December 2025 for $420,000, with the figure disclosed in a court filing on May 22, 2026. He had been accused of promoting FTX on social media and at public events without disclosing his compensation.18Front Office Sports. Udonis Haslem FTX Settlement $420K
Personal finance influencer Erika Kullberg and her talent agency, Creators Agency LLC, filed a joint notice of settlement on June 18, 2025. The financial terms are confidential pending a motion for preliminary approval.19Bloomberg Tax. Legal Influencer Erika Kullberg Settles FTX Promotion Claims
Who Is Still Fighting
As of mid-2026, Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Stephen Curry, Larry David, Kevin O’Leary, Shohei Ohtani, Naomi Osaka, David Ortiz, and the Golden State Warriors remain defendants. The surviving Florida and Oklahoma securities claims do not require plaintiffs to prove the celebrities knew about the underlying fraud, only that they participated in selling unregistered securities. The unresolved factual question is whether their endorsement deals made them agents of FTX.15FindLaw. In Re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation
No trial date has been set. The case remains consolidated for pretrial proceedings, and the docket was still active as of June 15, 2026, without any indication the litigation has moved into trial scheduling.20CourtListener. In Re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation Docket
The Broader FTX Backdrop
The celebrity litigation runs alongside, but separate from, the criminal case and the bankruptcy. Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and in March 2024 was sentenced to 25 years in prison with $11 billion in forfeiture. A federal appeals panel upheld both the conviction and sentence in June 2026.21U.S. Department of Justice. Samuel Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years22Forbes. Disgraced FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Loses Appeal of 25-Year Sentence FTX itself emerged from bankruptcy in January 2025 under a reorganization plan exceeding $14 billion, and had repaid roughly $6.2 billion to creditors by July 2025.23Sullivan & Cromwell. FTX Emerges Bankruptcy Under $14 Billion Plan24CoinDesk. FTX to Start Next Round of Creditor Repayments on Sept. 30 Those developments do not resolve the civil case against the endorsers, whose exposure now depends on whether their promotional agreements are ultimately treated as agent-of-the-issuer relationships under state securities law.