NBA Star Paul Pierce Challenges EthereumMax Investor Class Certification
On Monday, April 28, 2025, NBA icon and Hall of Famer Paul Pierce filed a response in the US District Court for the Central District of California opposing a motion to certify a class action in the EthereumMax Investor Litigation. The lawsuit alleges that Pierce, along with other defendants, participated in a scheme to promote EthereumMax (EMAX) cryptocurrency tokens, leading to financial losses for investors who purchased the tokens between May 14 and June 27, 2021.
Pierce’s filing argues that the proposed class action does not meet the legal requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all U.S. persons who bought EMAX tokens during the specified period and suffered damages, as well as four state-specific classes for California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York residents.
The plaintiffs’ claims center on three social media posts Pierce made on his Twitter (now X) account on May 26, 28, and 30, 2021, which allegedly promoted EMAX tokens misleadingly and without disclosing compensation. The lawsuit also cites numerous other social media posts by defendants, including internet influencer Kim Kardashian, boxing champion Floyd Mayweather, former athlete Antonio Brown, and EthereumMax executives, which allegedly induced investors to buy or hold EMAX tokens. These posts include promotions on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, as well as press releases and event appearances tied to a Mayweather boxing match.
Pierce’s opposition contends that the proposed class is overly broad, including individuals who were not harmed by his actions because they did not see his posts before purchasing EMAX tokens. The filing notes that three named plaintiffs—Christopher DeLuca, Ryan Huegerich, and Milan Puda—do not allege they viewed or relied on Pierce’s posts. Additionally, since Pierce’s first post was on May 26, 2021, any purchases made before that date could not have been influenced by his statements. The document argues that this inclusion of unaffected individuals undermines the class’s ascertainability and standing.
The opposition further asserts that individual issues predominate over common questions, making a class action unsuitable. Each plaintiff’s claim would require determining which specific social media posts they saw and how those posts influenced their purchasing decisions. For example, named plaintiff Michael Buckley alleges he was influenced by 11 posts from multiple defendants, while plaintiff Neil Shah cites seven posts from at least three defendants. Pierce’s attorneys argue that such individualized inquiries would necessitate “mini-trials” for each class member, defeating the efficiency of a class action.
The filing also challenges the plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). For UCL claims, plaintiffs must show they relied on misleading statements, which those who did not see Pierce’s posts cannot do. For FDUTPA claims, a causal link between the deceptive act and damages is required, which is absent for those unaware of Pierce’s posts. Additionally, the proposed class is described as a “fail-safe” class, improperly including only those who suffered damages, which courts have rejected as it excludes those who might have profited.
Pierce’s legal team requests that the court deny the class certification motion, arguing that any claims against him should be pursued individually.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
