Elon Musk’s $258 billion lawsuit expands to include more parties

Video Ad

Elon Musk's $258 billion lawsuit expands to include more parties

Elon Musk’s $258 billion lawsuit expands on Dogecoin

The $258 billion extortion lawsuit accusing Elon Musk of running a pyramid scheme to support cryptocurrency Dogecoin has expanded, with the addition of seven new investor plaintiffs and six new defendants including Boring Co.

According to an amended complaint filed Tuesday night in Manhattan federal court, Musk, his electric car company Tesla Inc, his space tourism company SpaceX, Boring and others raised the price of Dogecoin more than 36000% over two years and then let it go. Collide.

By doing so, the complaint said, the defendants “earned tens of billions of dollars” at the expense of other Dogecoin investors, all the while knowing that the coin lacked intrinsic value and that its value “relies solely on marketing.”

Tesla, SpaceX and Boring did not immediately respond on Wednesday to requests for comment. Tesla dissolved its media relations division in 2020.

The original lawsuit was filed in June.

Shortly thereafter, Musk, the world’s richest person, tweeted that he would “continue to support Dogecoin,” and in an interview he said “people who work at the factory at SpaceX or Tesla” asked him for that support, the amended complaint said.

Other new defendants include the Dogecoin Foundation, which calls itself a non-profit organization that provides governance and support for Dogecoin. It was not immediately available for comment.

Read Also:   From 2% to 13%, Nirmala Sitharaman explains India's import of Russian oil

The $258 billion in damages are three times the estimated drop in Dogecoin’s market value since May 2021.

It was around the time that Musk was playing a fictitious financial expert in the “weekend update” segment of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” which Dogecoin called a “hustle.”

Dogecoin was trading around 6 cents on Wednesday, down from about 74 cents in May 2021.

The case is Johnson et al. Musk et al, US District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-05037.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by the NDTV crew and is published from a syndicated feed.)