Nike RTFKT Lawsuit: A Landmark Ruling on the Securities Nature of NFTs and Brand Liability

robot
Abstract generation in progress

Nike RTFKT Lawsuit: A Milestone Event in the Web3 World

RTFKT is a company focused on digital fashion and technology, which was acquired by Nike in 2021. The company is known for launching NFT digital and physical sneakers featuring the iconic Swoosh logo. However, on December 3, 2024, RTFKT announced that it would gradually cease operations.

Since selling sneakers worth $10,000 on a certain NFT trading platform in 2021, RTFKT has rapidly established a vast network of NFTs and physical collectibles within the Ethereum ecosystem, during which it also collaborated with renowned artists.

At the end of 2024, the closure of RTFKT triggered a major legal dispute. A certain sports brand giant is facing a class action lawsuit worth $5 million, filed by holders of RTFKT NFTs. They accuse the brand of leveraging its influence and long-term vision to hype RTFKT NFTs, only to "quietly abandon" the project in the end, constituting what is referred to as a "soft rug pull."

This lawsuit has become one of the most watched legal battles in the crypto world, potentially serving as an important precedent for the first systematic examination of the nature of NFTs and brand liability by U.S. courts, which will profoundly affect the compliance boundaries of traditional enterprises in the Web3 industry.

In-depth interpretation of Nike's RTFKT lawsuit: What impact does it have on the Web3 world after being accused of "soft exit"?

Definition of "Soft Rug"

Cryptocurrency legal expert Carlo D'Angelo explains that a "soft rug pull" is not a violent sell-off, but rather a scenario where the project team intentionally or through gross negligence gradually deviates from the original development path, causing the NFT to gradually lose value.

The plaintiff (NFT holder) believes that the brand's promotion led users to reasonably expect the project would continue to develop, while the project's shutdown actually caused losses.

Possible defenses for the defendant may include:

  • NFTs are essentially "collectibles" rather than securities.
  • The company has no legal obligation to operate unsustainable projects indefinitely.

Unregistered Securities Issues

The court will determine whether RTFKT NFTs are sold as "investment contracts" based on the "Howey test."

D'Angelo pointed out that although the SEC's current attitude towards cryptocurrency policy is relatively lenient, the court will make independent judgments based on precedent, rather than fully adhering to the SEC's views.

This means that the plaintiff may face challenges in proving that these NFTs are considered securities.

Consumer Misleading Controversy

The plaintiff adopted a dual strategy:

  • Accusation that the brand did not fully disclose information when promoting NFTs.
  • Citing consumer protection laws from multiple states, accusing the brand of failing to fulfill its commitment to "future availability and ongoing support".

Even if it cannot win the "securities designation," this strategy may achieve some victory from the perspective of consumer protection.

The Impact of RTFKT Shutdown

The formal shutdown of the RTFKT brand is seen by the plaintiffs as key evidence of the brand abandoning the project and violating its promotion. NFT holders believe that their purchase of these digital assets is based on the "reasonable expectation" that the brand will continue to invest resources and support the ecosystem.

Impact on the Web3 World

D'Angelo predicts: The court may dismiss the "securities claims", but the plaintiffs may achieve partial victory in terms of "consumer rights".

Regardless of the outcome, this case serves as a warning to the brand.

  • If the plaintiff wins, the behavior of enterprises in the Web3 world will be subjected to stricter scrutiny.
  • When companies launch NFTs in the future, they may need to avoid making promises that are difficult to fulfill in the long term.
  • May lead to a decrease in the overall willingness of the brand to invest in NFTs.

Conclusion

This lawsuit is not just an ordinary legal dispute, but it will have far-reaching implications for the Web3 world:

  1. Whether NFTs constitute securities judicially defined
  2. Do traditional brands need to be responsible for digital assets in the long term?
  3. How enterprises can balance innovation and legal risks in Web3

In the future, every "first issue, then plan" NFT project may face more accountability risks.

View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SolidityNewbievip
· 07-20 04:02
It's really nice to make money!
View OriginalReply0
ProposalManiacvip
· 07-20 03:33
I just don't understand why the three giants insist on playing with web3.
View OriginalReply0
ser_ngmivip
· 07-17 05:51
Is a well-known brand also a scam?
View OriginalReply0
FUD_Whisperervip
· 07-17 05:41
Is the brand being sly?
View OriginalReply0
CryptoFortuneTellervip
· 07-17 05:30
Suckers' tears are salty...
View OriginalReply0
WalletDetectivevip
· 07-17 05:30
Soft Rug Pulls lack martial virtue.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate app
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)