A new twist has emerged in the class-action lawsuit against Logan Paul over his failed NFT game, Cryptozoo. Paul’s legal team recently filed a document alleging that YouTuber Coffeezilla, who published critical exposes on the project, is collaborating with the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Tom Kherker.
The Accusation of Collusion:
According to the filing, Paul’s lawyers suspect communication between Kherker and Coffeezilla due to “highly nuanced points” about Paul’s conduct in unrelated projects being mentioned by both Kherker in mediation and Coffeezilla in his videos and private messages to Paul. This suspected exchange of information has prompted them to request discovery of communications between the two parties.
Background of the Lawsuit:
The original lawsuit claims Paul misled people into buying Cryptozoo tokens with false promises about developing the game, which ultimately never materialized. Paul denies wrongdoing and blames two former employees for the project’s failure.
Coffeezilla’s video series on Cryptozoo highlighted alleged broken promises and mismanagement within the project, gaining significant traction online.
Paul’s Buyback Program and Attorney Tom’s Response:
Following Coffeezilla’s exposé, Paul offered a $2.3 million buyback program for Cryptozoo tokens. Attorney Tom, representing the plaintiffs, called this a “sneaky trick” to silence potential claims.
Amended Complaint and Further Accusations:
The plaintiffs recently filed an amended complaint with over 130 co-plaintiffs and details of their financial losses. Paul’s lawyers allege Kherker expedited this filing without consultation for strategic advantage and accuse him of “litigating in the media,” possibly violating court rules.
Neither Kherker nor Coffeezilla have publicly responded to the collusion accusations. The case raises questions about potential communication between the two and its impact on the lawsuit’s fairness.
This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal battle surrounding Cryptozoo. While the accusations of collusion remain unproven, they highlight the challenges of navigating online influence and potential media interference in legal proceedings. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to observe how the court addresses these concerns and ensures a fair and transparent resolution.