$500,000 NFT Lawsuit Over Pepe The Frog’s Butt Is A Funny Story
Late last year, Pepe the Frog creator Matt Fury decided to hold an NFT auction
Selling an image of the controversial character that showed him waist-deep in a pool. With his ass peeking out from below the surface. Everything that has happened since then, just as you imagine. Could be auctioned off in the gaudy Web3 space. Rage—who tried to “restore” the character in 2017 after he became a symbol of the far-right- formed. Decentralized Autonomous Organization or DAO under the name PegzDAO and auctioned one NFT representing the image above on October 8, while clearly stating that in addition to the one up for auction, there will be 99 more NFTs representing the same image created and held by the DAO.
Because Web3 is going just a fine report,
A man named Halston Thayer won the auction by spending the equivalent of $537,084 in cryptocurrency. No doubt he was delighted with his unique purchase, until a couple of weeks later PegzDAO released 46 of those 99 NFTS, which you will recall represent the exact same image for which Thayer paid half a million dollars.-is free.
First published by a lawyer Rob Freund Thayer has now decided to sue Furie, arguing that the free edition “significantly devalues[ed] Plaintiff’s Pepe NFT for less than $30,000”, which considering we’re talking about a completely useless image. that you all can right-click and save for yourself here, one of the funniest sentences I’ve ever read. The suit opens with the words:
This claim stems from Defendants’ illegal, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, which include their unfair, misleading, false, and misleading advertising and misconduct in relation to a specific non-fungible token (“NFT”) auction that led Claimant and others to significantly overstake on NFTs. Thus, Plaintiff brings this action for fraudulent inducement, willful misrepresentation by negligence, unfair competition and illegal business acts and practices, breach of contract, breach of an implied good faith and good faith agreement, and unjust enrichment.
Thayer is seeking a full refund of his original “investment” as well as “punitive damages”.