Attorneys representing Tesla CEO Elon Musk are urging a judge to dismiss a multi-billion dollar case that accuses the billionaire entrepreneur of insider trading with Dogecoin (DOGE), arguing that the accusations are baseless and frivolous. The lawyers argue that the plaintiffs should be barred from burdening the judicial system with additional accusations based on Musk’s tweets about DOGE. This article examines the details of the case and the arguments presented by Musk’s lawyers.
The plaintiffs initially filed a complaint in June 2022, seeking $258 billion in damages from Musk for investor losses allegedly incurred due to his promotion of DOGE in early 2021. However, the lawsuit has been amended three times since then. In June 2023, lead attorney Evan Spencer added insider trading and market manipulation charges to the lawsuit.
The amended filing identified specific wallets that Musk allegedly traded DOGE from, claiming that his tweets affected the asset’s price. However, Musk’s lawyers argue that the plaintiffs lack proof that any of the identified wallets actually belong to the CEO.
Musk’s lawyers assert that the allegations made by the plaintiffs are baseless and should be dismissed. They argue that Musk’s tweets about DOGE are innocuous and often silly, and should not be considered unlawful. The lawyers emphasize that supporting or sharing funny pictures about a cryptocurrency with a market capitalization of over $11 billion is not a crime.
They further highlight that the plaintiffs fail to state a claim that Musk’s tweets were materially false or misleading, or that he acted with the required intent. The defense invokes the concept of “puffery,” which refers to vague and exaggerated statements that do not convey a specific meaning or intention. They argue that Musk’s alleged “falsehoods” about DOGE, such as “Dogecoin to the moooonn” and “Dogecoin will live forever,” fall within the category of puffery.
Public Knowledge of Dogecoin
Both the plaintiffs and defendants agree that Dogecoin is a highly speculative investment. However, the defense points out that this fact is public, widely known, and obvious, citing admissions from Dogecoin founder Billy Markus himself. They argue that the speculative nature of Dogecoin was not concealed or misrepresented by Musk, and thus, his tweets did not constitute insider trading.
Insufficient Allegations
Musk’s lawyers criticize the plaintiffs for repeatedly failing to plead a cause of action in their complaints. They argue that the allegations made are vague and lack specific details necessary to meet the legal requirements of a complaint.
The defense highlights that the plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to amend their complaints but have consistently fallen short. They emphasize that after four complaints, the plaintiffs have failed to provide a sufficiently particularized complaint that supports their claims.
Elon Musk’s lawyers are pushing for the dismissal of the multi-billion dollar Dogecoin insider trading case against their client. They argue that the accusations made by the plaintiffs are baseless and constitute nothing more than Musk’s innocuous and often silly tweets about DOGE. The defense asserts that Musk’s tweets were not materially false or misleading and that the speculative nature of Dogecoin was widely known. Furthermore, they criticize the plaintiffs for repeatedly failing to provide sufficient allegations to support their claims. As the case unfolds, the judge will ultimately decide whether to dismiss the case or allow it to proceed.