A federal judge has dismissed the US entity of Dolce & Gabbana from an NFT lawsuit, casting doubt on the case’s future. The NFT lawsuit accused Dolce & Gabbana of failing to deliver promised benefits tied to its 2022 DGFamily NFT collection. However, the court ruled that the US branch could not be held liable for the actions of its Italy-based parent.
- Judge Rejects Claims Against Dolce and Gabbana USA
- NFT Buyers Accuse D&G of Withholding Promised Benefits
- Unserved Foreign Defendants Add Legal Complications
- FAQs
- 1. What is the NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana about?
- 2. Why was Dolce & Gabbana USA removed from the case?
- 3. Who else is named in the lawsuit?
- 4. What benefits did the NFTs promise?
- 5. What’s next for the lawsuit?
- Glossary of Key Terms
This development significantly impacts the NFT lawsuit, which named Dolce & Gabbana, its US arm, and other foreign companies. The plaintiffs alleged that all defendants worked jointly to market and sell high-value NFTs, promising exclusive perks. However, the judge found insufficient evidence to prove that Dolce & Gabbana USA controlled or participated in the project.
The ruling limits jurisdiction to only foreign-based entities, none of which have been served yet. Without the US firm involved, plaintiffs face new hurdles in keeping the case active. As a result, the NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana now stands on uncertain ground.
Judge Rejects Claims Against Dolce and Gabbana USA
On Friday, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that Dolce & Gabbana USA is not liable for its parent company’s NFT project. She concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove the US company acted as an “alter ego” of the Italian parent. The court emphasized the lawsuit relied too heavily on using “Dolce & Gabbana” as a shared name.
The plaintiffs had argued that the US and Italian companies operated as one entity during the DGFamily project. They cited shared executives, office space, and internal resources. Yet the judge stated the lawsuit did not provide examples showing how those shared resources influenced the NFT project.
Judge Buchwald said, “The Court finds that plaintiff has not adequately alleged that D&G S.R.L. completely dominated D&G USA.” This finding disqualifies the US arm from being responsible for the alleged misconduct. The NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana now faces complications in targeting only foreign parties.
NFT Buyers Accuse D&G of Withholding Promised Benefits
The plaintiffs claimed that Dolce & Gabbana and its partners failed to fulfill promises tied to the DGFamily NFT collection. Buyers were allegedly offered digital outfits, event access, and limited-edition fashion items. These were to be delivered quarterly over two years starting in 2022.
According to the complaint, Dolce & Gabbana and Dubai-based UNXD Inc. marketed the NFTs as exclusive memberships with real-world rewards. However, the buyers say they received only partial benefits, with many perks never arriving. The NFT lawsuit alleges that over $25 million was collected from buyers but not used as promised.
Despite these claims, the court found no basis to tie Dolce & Gabbana USA to the DGFamily campaign. The judge pointed out that the NFT project originated from Italy and involved partners outside the US. This detail weakens the buyers’ legal standing within US jurisdiction.
Unserved Foreign Defendants Add Legal Complications
The NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana also names UNXD Inc. and Bluebear Italia SRL as co-defendants. However, the court noted that neither of these foreign entities had been served with the complaint. Without proper service, the case cannot proceed against those companies.
The court stressed that US jurisdiction does not automatically extend to foreign businesses without legal service. As of now, the only defendant served—Dolce & Gabbana USA—has been cleared. Plaintiffs must now choose whether to pursue international service or revise the complaint.
This decision highlights a key procedural hurdle in NFT-related lawsuits involving international entities. Without a domestic defendant, the case risks dismissal on technical grounds, leaving the NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana legally vulnerable.
Summary
A federal judge dismissed Dolce & Gabbana USA from an ongoing NFT lawsuit, ruling it is not liable for its parent company’s project. Plaintiffs claimed they were misled into buying NFTs that promised exclusive benefits which were never fully delivered. With the US-based entity cleared and other defendants unserved, the case’s future is uncertain. The court emphasized the lack of evidence tying the US arm to the alleged misconduct. The NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana now hinges on whether international parties can be brought to court.
FAQs
1. What is the NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana about?
The lawsuit claims Dolce & Gabbana failed to deliver perks promised to DGFamily NFT buyers.
2. Why was Dolce & Gabbana USA removed from the case?
The court found it was a separate legal entity and not responsible for its parent company’s NFT project.
3. Who else is named in the lawsuit?
The lawsuit also names UNXD Inc. and Bluebear Italia SRL, though neither has been served yet.
4. What benefits did the NFTs promise?
Promised perks included digital outfits, physical clothing, and access to exclusive events over two years.
5. What’s next for the lawsuit?
Unless the foreign entities are properly served, the case could face dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction.
Glossary of Key Terms
NFT (Non-Fungible Token): A digital asset representing ownership of unique items using blockchain technology.
DGFamily: Dolce & Gabbana’s NFT collection launched in 2022 offering real-world and virtual perks.
UNXD Inc.: Dubai-based NFT marketplace involved in promoting the DGFamily NFTs.
Alter Ego Doctrine: A legal principle used to determine if two entities are legally indistinguishable.
Service of Process: The legal procedure of notifying a party about a lawsuit filed against them.
References:
For advertising inquiries, please email . [email protected] or Telegram
