EthereumMax Investors Sued Celebrity Promoters Over EMAX Token Campaign

A cryptocurrency investor filed a proposed class action on January 7, 2022 accusing EthereumMax executives and celebrity promoters Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Paul Pierce of misleading buyers during the promotion of the EMAX token.

Ryan Huegerich filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as case 2:22-cv-00163. It named EthereumMax figures Steve Gentile, Giovanni Perone and Justin French alongside the three celebrity defendants. The complaint alleged that the executives collaborated with the promoters to increase interest in EMAX, sell tokens at elevated prices and leave other purchasers with losses.

Those statements were allegations from one side of a newly filed civil case. On January 7, no court had found that a pump-and-dump scheme occurred, certified a plaintiff class, awarded damages or imposed liability on any defendant.

What the complaint alleged

Huegerich said he purchased EMAX and suffered an investment loss. He sought to represent people who bought the token during a proposed class period generally defined in the complaint as May 14 through June 27, 2021 and who were subsequently damaged.

The filing described Gentile, Perone and French as EthereumMax executives and Kardashian, Mayweather and Pierce as promoters. It alleged that promotional activity included Pierce’s social-media posts, Mayweather’s appearance connected to an exhibition boxing match and Kardashian’s Instagram promotion. The complaint acknowledged that Kardashian’s post contained an advertising label but questioned whether that disclosure adequately communicated the nature of the promotion.

The legal claims were brought principally under California law. They alleged violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, aiding and abetting by the promoter defendants, and unjust enrichment or restitution in the alternative. The plaintiff requested monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and a jury trial.

The filing did not present a judicial determination that EMAX buyers formed a legally valid class. Certification would require a later ruling addressing whether the proposed plaintiffs satisfied federal class-action requirements.

Why the filing mattered

The case placed the rapidly expanding market for celebrity-backed token promotions before a federal court. By early 2022, athletes, entertainers and online personalities could expose digital assets to audiences far larger than those reached by conventional cryptocurrency advertising. The complaint tested whether state consumer-protection law could reach executives and promoters together when buyers alleged that coordinated publicity concealed material information or created a misleading impression of demand.

It also illustrated a distinction that was easy to lose during the 2021 token boom: an endorsement’s visibility did not establish the promoter’s financial independence, the issuer’s identity, the distribution of token holdings or the existence of sustainable utility. Those questions required evidence beyond a social-media post.

Coinburn is not using the complaint’s token-price and trading-volume assertions as verified market data. EMAX traded through fragmented cryptocurrency venues without an official consolidated close, and the filing’s figures were presented to support the plaintiff’s theory rather than as an independently audited market dataset.

Status on January 7

At the close of January 7, the verified development was the filing itself. The allegations remained untested, the defendants had not been found liable, and the proposed class had not been certified. Reports published shortly afterward confirmed the filing and its central claims but did not convert those allegations into established facts.

Later context

A federal court consolidated this case with a related action in March 2022. In October 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission separately entered a settled order concerning Kardashian’s EMAX promotion. That later regulatory proceeding was not part of the information available on January 7 and did not itself prove the civil complaint’s broader allegations against every defendant.