A Manhattan federal court has approved an amendment to a class action accusing Elon Musk of engineering a financial pyramid scheme built around the Dogecoin cryptocurrency, with the plaintiffs seeking damages totaling 258 billion dollars. The case now moves forward on a broader claim that spans more investors and a larger roster of defendants. The update reflects a more expansive view of how Musk and his business ventures allegedly promoted Dogecoin and benefited financially as the asset surged. Reuters reports that the action has moved through the system with an emphasis on the alleged manipulation of Dogecoin’s price trajectory and the distribution of gains among a close circle of associates.
The revised complaint adds seven additional Dogecoin investors to the original plaintiff group, expanding the pool of people who say they were harmed by Musk’s actions. Alongside the new plaintiffs, the defendants’ lineup has expanded from the initial trio of Elon Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX to a total of nine named parties. The new filing keeps focus on how the involved entities allegedly influenced Dogecoin’s market dynamics, arguing that the price was driven up by coordinated endorsements, marketing efforts, and strategic investments that misled ordinary buyers. The language of the allegations has been updated to emphasize a pattern of creating and sustaining artificial demand, then allowing the asset to peak before exiting positions. This framing is used to argue that the participants knowingly promoted a token they recognized as lacking intrinsic value for profit and prestige, drawing additional investors into the scheme. Reuters notes that the timeline traces back to Dogecoin’s early growth, with the plaintiffs contending that the actions were deliberate rather than accidental.
The case originated with a lawsuit filed in June 2022, naming Elon Musk and his affiliated companies in connection with Dogecoin. Since then, the proceedings have evolved as the plaintiffs broaden their claim and the defendants respond with counterarguments grounded in corporate conduct, market activity, and disclosures. The evolving posture of the litigation reflects ongoing concerns about how high-profile technology leaders influence speculative assets and what obligations accompany their public statements and corporate actions. Reuters provides context on how this dispute has progressed from its inception to the present, highlighting the added participants and the shifting emphasis in the accusations.