Stephen Curry’s FTX Lawsuit: Allegations and Judge Moore’s Ruling

Stephen Curry is a defendant in the Stephen Curry FTX lawsuit, a consolidated multibillion-dollar investor class action accusing him and other celebrity endorsers of helping FTX sell unregistered securities to customers who trusted the exchange partly because famous faces promoted it. In May 2025, a federal judge threw out most of the claims against Curry, but two state-law counts survived, and he remains an active defendant in the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.¹

The Endorsement Deal That Put Curry in the Case

Curry signed on as a global brand ambassador for FTX and took part of his compensation as an equity stake in the company.² According to author Michael Lewis, he was paid $35 million for roughly 60 hours of work spread across three years.³

His ads leaned on a specific pitch: that despite not being a cryptocurrency expert, he could navigate crypto because “FTX made things so easy.” FTX’s own marketing described his role as expanding the platform’s reach and promoting the viability of crypto to new audiences.⁴ The Golden State Warriors had a separate FTX sponsorship worth more than $10 million that placed the exchange’s branding on the Chase Center court and across the team’s affiliates.⁵ The Warriors organization is also a defendant.¹

What Investors Are Accusing Him Of

The investor lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3076, before U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore. Adam Moskowitz and David Boies serve as co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class.⁶ The original complaints sought roughly $21 billion in total damages from the celebrity promoters and other defendants.¹

The core theory is that FTX’s yield-bearing accounts and its native token, FTT, were unregistered securities, and that celebrity endorsers helped sell them to millions of people without proper disclosure. Plaintiffs allege Curry and the other promoters failed to disclose the nature and amount of what they were paid, failed to perform any due diligence on FTX before marketing it, and misled consumers into believing the platform was safe.⁴

The complaint asserts 14 counts against the celebrity defendants, spanning Florida, California, and Oklahoma securities law, deceptive trade practices statutes, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting conversion, and a request for declaratory judgment. The legal framework leans heavily on the Howey test, the standard the Supreme Court set in 1946 for deciding when something counts as an investment contract under securities law.⁷

Judge Moore’s May 2025 Ruling

On May 7, 2025, Judge Moore issued a sweeping order on the celebrity defendants’ motions to dismiss. He dismissed 12 of the 14 counts, finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged the celebrities knew about Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraud or had the “requisite intent to deceive or defraud investors.” The judge acknowledged the endorsers may have been “uninformed, negligent, or even reckless,” but ruled that being paid for promotional content is not, by itself, enough to establish civil conspiracy liability.⁸

Two claims survived: allegations that the defendants violated Florida and Oklahoma laws barring the sale of unregistered securities. Those statutes operate under a strict-liability framework. Plaintiffs do not need to prove the celebrities knew FTX was fraudulent. Judge Moore found it “plausible that FTX ‘needed influencers’ to sell its products” and that the promotions could count as solicitation of unregistered securities under state law.⁹

Why the Surviving Claims Are Hard to Shake

The two surviving counts rest on binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. In its 2022 decision in Wildes v. BitConnect Int’l PLC, the appeals court held that promoting cryptocurrency through mass channels like YouTube and social media can be “solicitation” under Section 12 of the Securities Act. The court rejected the idea that a promoter escapes liability by choosing a public platform over a personal pitch, writing that a solicitation is illegal whether it reaches “one known person or a million unknown ones.”¹⁰

Judge Moore applied that reasoning directly to the FTX celebrity defendants, concluding that when they urged followers to invest in FTX while being paid to do so, they potentially “solicited the purchases that followed.”⁷ For Curry, that means the strongest legal defense used by celebrity endorsers (that they didn’t know) is not available on the two remaining counts.

After the May 2025 ruling, Judge Moore granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and on May 29, 2025, co-lead counsel filed a 582-page amended complaint prepared in coordination with the FTX bankruptcy estate. The amendment added new defendants, including Major League Baseball and Mercedes F1 Racing. Judge Moore has organized the litigation into tracks targeting different categories of defendants: promoters, lawyers, accountants, insiders, and hedge fund investors.¹¹

How Curry Compares to Other Celebrity Defendants

Curry is one of many well-known names in the case. Others include Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Larry David, Kevin O’Leary, Shohei Ohtani, Naomi Osaka, David Ortiz, and Udonis Haslem, along with several YouTube influencers.⁹ Reported compensation ranged widely: Brady reportedly received $55 million in endorsement compensation,¹² Larry David was reportedly paid $13 million for his 2022 Super Bowl commercial,¹³ and Kevin O’Leary received roughly $15 million, a portion held in FTX equity and tokens on the platform.¹⁴

Several defendants have already settled. Shaquille O’Neal agreed to pay $1.8 million in a June 2025 filing that does not include an admission of wrongdoing and requires court approval.¹⁵ Former NFL quarterback Trevor Lawrence settled for undisclosed terms, and a group of seven crypto-influencer defendants collectively agreed to pay roughly $1.36 million.⁴ Former Miami Heat player Udonis Haslem settled for $420,000.¹⁶

Curry has not.

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, Stephen Curry remains an active defendant in the consolidated FTX litigation on the surviving Florida and Oklahoma state securities claims. Because those counts do not require proof that he knew FTX was a fraud, the question in front of the court is narrower: whether his promotions amounted to soliciting the sale of unregistered securities under state law. Judge Moore found that theory plausible enough to survive dismissal, and it rests on Eleventh Circuit precedent that binds the trial court.¹

The case remains before Judge Moore in the Southern District of Florida. Co-lead counsel Moskowitz reported in early 2026 that an initial wave of settlements exceeding $100 million was pending court approval,¹⁷ and the litigation’s multi-track structure could take years to fully resolve.¹⁸

1
CNBC. FTX Claims Against Steph Curry, Tom Brady, Celebrities
2
SportsPro. Steph Curry Makes Crypto Play With FTX Equity Deal
3
SFGate. Steph Curry Reportedly Made $35 Million From FTX
4
ClassAction.org. Bankman-Fried, Celebs, Athletes Hit With Class Action Over FTX Collapse
5
Decrypt. FTX to Pay NBAs Golden State Warriors $10M for Rights Sponsorship
6
Reuters. FTX Plaintiffs Lawyers Settle Bitter Feud With FTX Estate
7
FindLaw. In Re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation
8
Front Office Sports. Brady, Curry, Ohtani FTX Lawsuit
9
Claims Journal. Judge Dismisses Most of FTX Investors Claims Against Celebrity Endorsers
10
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. Wildes v. BitConnect Intl PLC
11
The Moskowitz Law Firm. FTX Promoter Class Action
12
Sportico. Tom Brady FTX Sponsorship
13
The Hollywood Reporter. Larry David Crypto FTX Lawsuit
14
Forbes. Kevin OLeary Points Finger at Binance for FTX Crash in Senate Testimony
15
CNBC. Shaq Settles FTX Lawsuit
16
Bloomberg Law. Fenwick West to Pay $54 Million in FTX Collapse Settlement
17
The American Lawyer. The Lawyer Who Took on FTXs Web of Promoters
18
CourtListener. In Re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation