Rob Gronkowski faces potential addition to Voyager crypto lawsuit

Rob Gronkowski Celebrates NFL Retirement At Mohegan Sun
Getty Images

Tom Brady may not be the only NFL player facing civil liability for involvement with cryptocurrency firms.

Via Daniel Kaplan of TheAthletic.com, retired (for now) tight end Rob Gronkowski could be joined to a pending lawsuit regarding Voyager Digital.

Gronk, per the report, has been subpoenaed to testify in the pending litigation.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the Dallas Mavericks and owner Mark Cuban for promoting Voyager have issued paperwork to Gronkowski compelling him to testify.

Gronkowski became a brand ambassador for Voyager in 2021.

The plaintiffs in the pending lawsuit have until February 24 to amend their complaint. A statement to Kaplan from the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit strongly suggests that Gronkowski will be added to the case.

25 responses to “Rob Gronkowski faces potential addition to Voyager crypto lawsuit

  1. All this is the equivalent to throwing your money away at a strip joint, then complaining you lost money. Anyone with half a brain knows these things are/were a scam.

  2. Sorry, but I wasn’t close to running out and throwing money down a hole because “Gronk say invest “.
    But I imagine lots of other people did because “Gronk is America’s Meathead”.

  3. Gronk is actually an excellent investor but that stems primarily due to his initiative to save.

    If anyone thought Gronk had detail knowledge of crypto they have themselves to blame.

  4. Celebrities will start to think twice before lending themselves to any product who wants to use them. Kind of stupid though to use a product because a celebrity endorses it.

  5. Crypto is a total Ponzi scheme. Its entire premise is a bet on sufficient supply of stupid people, and while that may be a legitimate bet, it’s a lousy basis for a currency.

  6. Imagine feeling sorry for these clowns. And by clowns I mean the celebrity endorsers and the purchasers. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Cmon man!

  7. Just curious, if my car breaks down, can I sue the celebrity from the car commercial? Adding celebrity names to a lawsuit serves no other purpose than to bring publicity. Has Matt Damon been sued for being in the crypto.com SB commercials? I’m sure Gronk’s people just tell him “yes, this is a good thing to do”.

  8. Putting your name and reputation to shill for dubious financial products should have repercussions. These elites aren’t promoting a sandwich shop or pair a of sneakers or a sports drink. They (Kardashian, Gronk, Tommy, Matt Damon, etc.) took hundreds of G’s for promoting junk financial garbage like this and should be held accountable. Of course the political hacks got millions, so can’t expect the SEC to do anything….

  9. getem says:
    January 17, 2023 at 4:27 pm
    All this is the equivalent to throwing your money away at a strip joint, then complaining you lost money. Anyone with half a brain knows these things are/were a scam.

    —————————

    Then Gronk, Mark, Tom, Giselle and every other celeb accepting the endorsements are guilty of peddling scams and should face the consequences

  10. Celebrities will start to think twice before lending themselves to any product who wants to use them.
    ________

    Standard endorsements are one thing because there is a guaranteed payment and as a paid endorser you’re not really that exposed to lawsuits, etc. What has become a nightmare for Gronk/Brady/etc in these crypto cases is most of them took stock. If they held onto it then it’s now worthless, plus the feds are questioning them because as owners there are questions about what they may have known about the fraud, and there is way more exposure in lawsuits as an owner. Given how volatile crypto is (even when fraud isn’t involved) these people got terrible advice from their business managers. I would have thought that just the potential negative publicity if something went wrong would have been enough to keep most of these people away but they got greedy.

  11. Carroll Prescott says:
    January 17, 2023 at 4:35 pm
    Can he at least be banned from doing any more commercials?

    859Rate This

    ——————

    Not until Gomer Manning’s forehead is permanently removed from my tv screen.

  12. So let me get this straight– “Gronk” doesn’t provide sound financial advice?

    Not sure how anyone could invest in crypto without realizing the risk, but if you’re going to hold someone accountable it should be the sleazy con-artists who ran these companies, not some paid celebrity spokesperson. Honestly, if these folks misled the SEC, etc., we’re counting on guys like Gronk or Brady to be the whistleblowers? The only people who are going to make any money of these lawsuits aren’t the investors, it’s the lawyers.

  13. Good point about Manning, who along with famous brother and dad, and his not so famous brother, are promoting gambling.

    These ads (crypto and gambling) run on NFL games. That ad money primarily goes into the pockets of NFL owners.

    Are they off the hook of responsibility thrown so cavalierly here?

  14. forgotmypassword says:
    January 17, 2023 at 6:42 pm
    getem says:
    January 17, 2023 at 4:27 pm
    All this is the equivalent to throwing your money away at a strip joint, then complaining you lost money. Anyone with half a brain knows these things are/were a scam.

    —————————

    Then Gronk, Mark, Tom, Giselle and every other celeb accepting the endorsements are guilty of peddling scams and should face the consequences

    ——

    Nah. I see it as people needing to learn lessons in stupidity. I’m a tough love guy. If you believe there’s a way to get rich quick in today’s world, you deserve what happens. I don’t blame Tide for kids chewing on pods. I don’t need to read the label on a coffee cup that it’s hot and blame McDonald’s for spilling it. And if a celebrity or athlete endorses a product, I’m running away faster than Tyreke Hill, while chuckling at those that fall for it. Maybe it’s because I’m on the losing side of middle age, I just don’t believe in the premise that everyone is a victim.

  15. All of the people named were paid to promote this and whatever they lost when it went under was probably the payment. Who knows what else they had invested.

    Naming them is just a silly tactic to garner attention on a lawsuit that otherwise would be back page news. All of the celebrity promotors will have their names thrown out of the lawsuit before long.

  16. it’s always easier to blame someone else than face up to being a chump. EVERYONE who lost money in crypto had it comng. some complete idiots actually made a lot of money in it; hey good for them just don’t cry to mommy if you lose.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.