$250,000 Ad, $1.26 Million Fine: The Kim Kardashian Crypto Settlement

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against Kim Kardashian on October 3, 2022, alleging she unlawfully touted a crypto asset security offered by EthereumMax without disclosing the payment she received for the promotion, a violation of the anti-touting provisions of federal securities law.DOCUMENTED

Kardashian agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, paying $1.26 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest, and agreeing not to promote any crypto asset securities for three years.DOCUMENTED

What the post said, and what it left out

According to the SEC's order, Kardashian's June 2021 Instagram post promoted EMAX, a crypto token offered by EthereumMax, describing aspects of the project including its token-burning mechanism and directing her followers to a link on the EthereumMax website with instructions for purchasing the tokens. The post included the hashtag "#AD," indicating some form of paid promotional relationship, but did not disclose the specific nature, source, or dollar amount of the compensation Kardashian had received.DOCUMENTED

The SEC's order found that Kardashian had in fact been paid $250,000 by EthereumMax to publish the post, a fact the agency determined was material to how her followers, several of whom would go on to purchase the token based partly on her endorsement, should have evaluated the credibility and independence of her promotion.DOCUMENTED

Why a hashtag wasn't enough

Federal securities law's anti-touting provision, codified in Section 17(b) of the Securities Act, requires that anyone who promotes a security in exchange for consideration must disclose the receipt of that consideration along with its specific amount and source. A generic "#AD" disclosure, while indicating some commercial relationship existed, does not satisfy this more specific statutory requirement, which is designed to let potential investors evaluate exactly how much financial incentive shaped the endorsement they are seeing.DOCUMENTED

"This case is a reminder that, when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, it doesn't mean that those investment products are right for all investors," then-SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a statement accompanying the charges. The SEC's order separately laid out its reasoning for treating the EMAX token as a security in the first place, citing EthereumMax's own public marketing statements touting the token's likely rise in value as a result of the company's ongoing development efforts — language the agency's order noted closely tracked the classic legal test for what constitutes an investment contract under securities law.DOCUMENTED

The settlement's terms

Kardashian's $1.26 million settlement broke down into three components: approximately $260,000 in disgorgement, representing the promotional payment she received plus a modest additional amount; roughly $10,000 in prejudgment interest; and a $1 million civil penalty, which represented the large majority of the total settlement figure. Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Kardashian agreed to the settlement and further agreed not to promote any crypto asset securities for a period of three years.DOCUMENTED

Part of a broader celebrity-endorsement crackdown

The case arrived amid heightened SEC attention to celebrity and influencer promotion of crypto assets more broadly, following the collapse in value of numerous tokens that had been heavily promoted by high-profile figures during the 2021 crypto market peak. Gurbir Grewal, then Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, stated that federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or individual who promotes a crypto asset security must disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion, framing the Kardashian settlement as reinforcing an established legal requirement rather than establishing a novel one.DOCUMENTED

Legal commentators have since pointed to the Kardashian case as one of the SEC's more effective public-awareness enforcement actions, given Kardashian's enormous social media following: by charging one of the world's most recognizable influencers over a relatively modest $250,000 payment, the agency generated substantial media coverage of the underlying disclosure requirement, reaching an audience of prospective investors and other influencers far beyond what a comparable action against a less famous individual would likely have achieved.REVIEWED

The EMAX token's roughly 95 percent decline in value by the time of the settlement underscores the asymmetry embedded in celebrity crypto endorsement cases generally: the influencer who receives a fixed promotional payment faces no downside risk tied to the token's subsequent performance, while followers who purchase based on the endorsement bear the full risk of a token's collapse. The SEC's anti-touting enforcement theory addresses only the disclosure failure itself, not the underlying investment losses suffered by individual EMAX purchasers, who would need to pursue separate civil litigation against EthereumMax or its promoters to seek any direct compensation for their losses.REVIEWED

The SEC's decision to pursue Kardashian rather than focusing solely on EthereumMax's own founders reflects a deliberate enforcement strategy aimed at the promotional layer of crypto fraud specifically, on the theory that disclosure violations by highly visible endorsers cause outsized consumer harm precisely because of the endorser's reach, regardless of whether the endorser had any role in creating or operating the underlying token project itself.REVIEWED

The broader wave of celebrity crypto endorsement scrutiny that followed Kardashian's settlement has since touched other high-profile figures across sports and entertainment, reinforcing the SEC's position that fame alone provides no exemption from the same disclosure obligations that govern any paid promoter of a security, crypto-based or otherwise.REVIEWED

For ordinary social media users trying to evaluate similar promotional posts today, securities lawyers who have written about the case note a simple practical test: a hashtag alone, whether "#ad" or "#sponsored," signals only that some commercial relationship exists, not its size or nature, meaning the specific disclosure obligations the SEC enforced against Kardashian would still apply to any comparable promotion of a crypto asset security made today, regardless of platform or format.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.