Elon Musk Dogecoin Lawsuit, $258 Billion Case Against Musk and Tesla Dismissed, Appeal Withdrawn and What Investors Can Do

A federal judge in New York dismissed the $258 billion Dogecoin lawsuit against Elon Musk and Tesla with prejudice on August 29, 2024. The investors’ appeal was later withdrawn by agreement in November 2024. The $258 billion was a damages demand, never an award. There is no settlement, no settlement fund, no claim form and no claim deadline for Dogecoin investors in this case.

Quick Facts: Gorog v. Musk (formerly Johnson v. Musk)

Detail	Information
Official settlement website	None. There was no settlement
Claim form / claim deadline	None
Case name	Gorog et al. v. Musk et al. (originally filed as Johnson v. Musk)
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Case number	No. 1:22-cv-05037 (also styled 22 Civ. 5037 (AKH))
Judge	U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
Original filing	June 16, 2022, by Keith Johnson
Lead plaintiffs (final complaint)	Colby Gorog, Joshua Flint, Louis Robinson and Michael Lerro
Defendants (dismissed fourth amended complaint)	Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc.
Damages demanded	$258 billion: about $86 billion in claimed losses plus $172 billion in claimed treble damages
Case type	Putative class action (no class was certified)
District court outcome	Dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2024; case closed
Appeal	Second Circuit No. 24-2501; reported withdrawn by stipulation filed November 14, 2024
Money awarded to investors	None

What Did Investors Accuse Elon Musk and Tesla of Doing?

The lawsuit alleged that Musk used social media posts, television appearances and other promotion to inflate Dogecoin’s price and trading volume, leaving investors with losses when the price fell. The plaintiffs described the conduct as a crypto “pyramid scheme” and a pump-and-dump. These were allegations, not findings.

The complaint pointed to events such as:

• Musk’s posts calling Dogecoin the people’s crypto and the “future currency of Earth”
• His May 2021 appearance on Saturday Night Live
• Statements that SpaceX might fly a Dogecoin to the moon and pay for the mission with it
• Tesla accepting Dogecoin for certain merchandise
• Later amended allegations about Twitter’s temporary Shiba Inu logo change in 2023

The plaintiffs also alleged suspicious trading tied to wallets they said Musk or Tesla controlled. The defendants contested these claims, and the court did not find them proven.

Where Did the $258 Billion Figure Come From?

The original complaint claimed roughly $86 billion in compensatory damages and sought $172 billion more as treble damages, for a total of $258 billion. That was the plaintiffs’ requested recovery under a civil RICO theory, not a court-approved measure of actual losses. A demand can be far larger than what evidence or the law supports.

Why Did Judge Hellerstein Dismiss the Case?

On August 29, 2024, Judge Hellerstein granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice, directed judgment for the defendants and closed the case. He said only one of the defense arguments needed to be addressed to decide the motion.

Puffery

The court treated Musk’s statements, including that Dogecoin would be the future currency of Earth, could buy Tesla vehicles or could go to the moon, as aspirational rather than verifiable statements of fact. A reasonable investor could not rely on them as actionable misrepresentations for a securities-fraud claim.

Market manipulation and insider trading

The court separately found the allegations behind the market-manipulation, pump-and-dump, insider-trading and related state-law theories insufficiently understandable to support the claims as pleaded.

What the ruling did not decide

• It did not find that Musk had no effect on Dogecoin’s price. Influencing sentiment is not the same as securities fraud.
• It did not hold that all promotional statements are always legally safe. The court assessed the specific statements and allegations before it.
• It was a pleading-stage decision, not a trial examining every transaction.

Laws and Legal Rules Involved

Securities and fraud laws

• Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Prohibit manipulative and deceptive devices in connection with buying or selling securities. A private plaintiff must generally prove a material misrepresentation or manipulative act, scienter, a connection to a purchase or sale, reliance, economic loss and loss causation.
• 15 U.S.C. § 78t-1. Creates a private right of action for people who traded contemporaneously with someone trading on material nonpublic information.
• Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964(c). Allows treble damages for injury from racketeering. Notably, § 1964(c) bars civil RICO claims based on conduct that would be actionable as securities fraud, which is a major hurdle for RICO theories built on alleged market manipulation.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Allows dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, which is one reason vague or confusing allegations can fail.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Governs sanctions for improper filings. Both sides reportedly sought sanctions during the appeal.

Class action rules

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A class must be certified before a case becomes a true class action, requiring numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation. No class was certified here, so this was a putative class action. For private securities class actions, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, also sets lead-plaintiff and pleading standards.

Time limits

• 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b). Private securities-fraud claims generally must be filed within two years after discovery of the violation and no later than five years after it occurred. Anyone considering a separate claim should check deadlines promptly.
• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). A notice of appeal in a civil case is generally due within 30 days after entry of judgment. The plaintiffs met this deadline by filing their notice in September 2024.

What Does “Dismissed With Prejudice” Mean?

It generally means the dismissed claims cannot simply be refiled as the same case. The judge entered judgment for the defendants and ordered the case closed. In addition, according to reporting on the November 2024 stipulation, the plaintiffs agreed not to challenge the dismissal order and not to seek further post-judgment relief.

What Happened to the Appeal?

Date	Development
August 29, 2024	District court dismisses the fourth amended complaint with prejudice
August 30, 2024	Judgment entered
September 19, 2024	Notice of appeal filed by the four lead plaintiffs
September 24, 2024	Second Circuit opens appeal No. 24-2501
November 14, 2024	Stipulation reported filed withdrawing the appeal and both sides’ sanctions motions
November 20-22, 2024	The public appellate docket lists a stipulation of dismissal received and then marked defective

Reports from Reuters and law-firm commentary say the investors withdrew their appeal and agreed not to perfect it, while Musk and Tesla withdrew their sanctions motion against the investors’ lawyer. The publicly accessible docket does not clearly show the final closing order. The district court dismissal remains the operative outcome. Anyone needing the exact appellate closing status should check the Second Circuit docket through PACER.

Can Dogecoin Investors Still Claim Money?

No. There is no verified settlement fund, settlement administrator, claims notice or deadline connected to this case. Buying or trading Dogecoin during the period in the lawsuit does not create an automatic right to compensation.

What investors with losses can do

• Preserve exchange statements, wallet records, transaction histories and any statements you relied on.
• Check limitation deadlines (see 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b) above) before assuming a separate claim is still available.
• Be wary of anyone promising a payout from this case. Do not pay “claim fees” or share wallet seed phrases or private keys. You can report crypto scams to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or the FBI’s IC3 at ic3.gov.
• Speak with a securities attorney about any independent claim. Whether one exists depends on your facts and the law.

How Is This Different From the SEC’s Case Against Musk?

The Dogecoin plaintiffs were private investors seeking damages. The SEC’s Twitter-disclosure matter was a government enforcement action involving a different issue (late disclosure of a stake in Twitter). A result in one does not decide the other, so always check the case name, court, claims and status before connecting legal developments involving the same person.

Key Dates

Date	Event
May 2021	Musk appears on Saturday Night Live; discussed in the complaint
June 16, 2022	Keith Johnson files the original complaint in the Southern District of New York
2022-2024	Complaint amended several times; Gorog, Flint, Robinson and Lerro become lead plaintiffs
August 29, 2024	Judge Hellerstein dismisses the fourth amended complaint with prejudice
September 19, 2024	Plaintiffs file notice of appeal
November 14, 2024	Stipulation reported withdrawing the appeal and sanctions motions
October 19, 2026	Research date; no settlement, claims program or revived case identified

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the $258 billion Dogecoin lawsuit still going?

No. The district court dismissed it with prejudice in August 2024, and the investors’ appeal was reported withdrawn in November 2024.

Did Elon Musk have to pay $258 billion?

No. That was the plaintiffs’ demand. The court awarded nothing.

How was $258 billion calculated?

About $86 billion in claimed compensatory damages plus $172 billion in treble damages, as requested in the original complaint.

Why did the judge dismiss the case?

He found Musk’s statements were aspirational puffery rather than actionable facts, and that the manipulation and insider-trading allegations were not sufficiently understandable as pleaded.

Did the court find Musk committed fraud?

No. The court dismissed the complaint. The allegations were never proven.

Was it a certified class action?

No. No class was certified, so it was a putative class action.

Can Dogecoin buyers file a claim?

No claims process exists for this case.

Can the plaintiffs refile?

The claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiffs reportedly agreed not to challenge the dismissal or seek further post-judgment relief.

Did the Second Circuit rule on the merits?

No appellate ruling on the merits was identified. The appeal was reported withdrawn.

Does the ruling mean crypto promotion is never illegal?

No. The decision addressed the specific statements and pleadings in this case. Different statements or facts could lead to different results.

Was the Dogecoin Foundation sued?

The Dogecoin Foundation appears as a defendant in earlier captions and in the appellate docket caption. The fourth amended complaint addressed in the August 2024 dismissal order was directed at Musk and Tesla.

Related Reading on AllAboutLawyer

• Ben Pasternak $BELIEVE Token Class Action Lawsuit: Are You Eligible to Join?
• Logan Paul Just Won His CryptoZoo Lawsuit, But His Legal Nightmare Isn’t Over
• Elon Musk SEC Twitter Disclosure Settlement: How an 11-Day Delay Cost Him $1.5 Million

Sources and Court Records

1. U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., order dated August 29, 2024, Gorog et al. v. Musk et al., No. 22 Civ. 5037 (AKH): https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2022cv05037/581639/113/
2. Original complaint, Johnson v. Musk et al., No. 1:22-cv-05037 (June 16, 2022): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1–22-cv-05037/Johnson_v._Musk_et_al/1/
3. S.D.N.Y. docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv05037/581639
4. Second Circuit docket, No. 24-2501: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/24-2501
5. Reuters, “Lawsuit claiming Elon Musk rigged dogecoin ends” (November 2024), reporting the stipulation withdrawing the appeal and sanctions motions: https://www.fastcompany.com/91229876/elon-musk-lawsuit-dogecoin-dropped
6. Baker McKenzie Blockchain Blog, “Dogecoin buyers drop the appeal” (November 18, 2024): https://blockchain.bakermckenzie.com/2024/11/18/dogecoin-buyers-drop-the-appeal-of-their-case-against-elon-musk-the-designated-co-leader-of-doge-department-of-government-efficiency/
7. Laws and rules referenced: 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; 15 U.S.C. §§ 78t-1 and 78u-4; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 11, 12(b)(6) and 23; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher.

AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice. It is not a law firm and does not represent any party in this case.