A California judge has made a crucial ruling in the EMAX class-action lawsuit involving celebrities Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather Jr., and Paul Pierce.

Judge Michael Fitzgerald rejected arguments from Kardashian and Pierce’s lawyers to dismiss the case, stating that Kardashian had posted false information on social media while promoting EthereumMax (EMAX).

This decision paves the way for the plaintiffs to proceed with the lawsuit against the media personality and retired boxer.

Kardashian’s attorneys had sought to dismiss the suit, claiming that there was no evidence investors bought EMAX tokens based on her Instagram posts.

However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that Kardashian’s online posts contained “literally false” information, including misleading statements suggesting that EMAX tokens were scarce. As a result, the case against Kardashian will continue.

The judge also rejected similar arguments made by Pierce’s legal team, but provided some respite for Mayweather. Fitzgerald deemed Mayweather’s promotion of EMAX as expressing his personal belief, describing his statements as “quintessential nonactionable puffery.”

The EMAX case originated in January of last year when investors filed a lawsuit against Kardashian, Pierce, and Mayweather, alleging that they promoted EMAX and influenced their fans and followers to invest in the tokens.

The investors claim that the celebrities worked with EMAX to artificially increase the token’s price through the deliberate posting of false or misleading statements.

During the period from June 2021 to January 2022, the value of EMAX plummeted by approximately 97%, leading investors to suspect a pump-and-dump scheme.

They also argue that the use of the name “EthereumMax” was intentionally misleading, as the project has no affiliation with Ethereum.

In December, Judge Fitzgerald issued a tentative ruling in favor of Kardashian, Mayweather, and EMAX. However, the recent rejection of the motion to dismiss the case marks a significant turnaround from the earlier ruling.

This decision highlights the concerns raised about celebrities influencing their followers to invest in potentially dubious projects and emphasizes the need for investors to exercise caution and due diligence.