Kes Voyager Ends: Mark Cuban Wins Again in Court, What Does It Mean for the Crypto Industry?

Good news for pro-crypto billionaire Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks organization—federal court has decided to dismiss all class action lawsuits accusing them of causing investment losses through promotion of Voyager Digital. The decision comes from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in early 2025, marking a significant moment in digital asset regulation history.

Background: When Voyager Collapsed

To understand the significance of this ruling, we need to go back to the 2021-2022 NBA season. At that time, the Dallas Mavericks collaborated with the crypto lending platform Voyager Digital in a large-scale promotional campaign. Mark Cuban, known as a vocal supporter of the crypto industry, actively promoted the platform on social media and in various public interviews.

However, in July 2022, Voyager Digital experienced a dramatic Chapter 11 bankruptcy—an event that froze customer assets and caused massive losses for thousands of investors. Investors who felt harmed then filed class action lawsuits, claiming that Mark Cuban’s and Mavericks’ promotions materially contributed to their financial losses.

Voyager’s Defense in Court: Court Says Not Enough

The federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ arguments did not meet the legal standards required to proceed with the case. Specifically, the court found that claims under Texas state securities laws and consumer protection statutes failed to prove liability for general promotional activities.

This decision—dismissal with prejudice—means the plaintiffs cannot refile identical claims in the same court. Cuban’s legal team immediately announced this victory as a comprehensive validation of their position: promoting the platform is not the same as selling securities or committing investment fraud.

Howey Test: What Was Actually Decided?

The core issue is the strict application of the Howey Test, a legal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1946. This test determines whether a transaction qualifies as an ‘investment contract’ and is subject to federal securities regulation.

Legal observers suggest the court may have concluded that promoting platform services generally—rather than selling specific tokens—does not meet the stringent Howey threshold. This technical distinction turns out to be crucial: endorsing a service is different from offering unregistered securities.

Impact on Influencers, Athletes, and the Crypto Ecosystem

This ruling sends mixed signals across the industry landscape. On one hand, it sets a higher legal bar for plaintiffs to connect general endorsements with specific investment losses. But legal analysts warn—this is not a free pass for unlimited promotion.

Legal risks remain real, especially if promoters:

• Make false explicit claims about security or returns
• Engage in promoting unregistered tokens
• Provide misleading specific investment advice

The decision also reflects ongoing tension between state court rulings and more aggressive federal SEC enforcement actions against other crypto platforms and promoters.

Key Highlights from the Voyager Case

Regulatory Clarity: The crypto industry continues to grapple with applying traditional securities frameworks to novel digital marketing.

Caveat Emptor Principle: The ruling emphasizes investor responsibility to conduct their own due diligence in a largely unregulated market.

Limited Precedent: This outcome is specific to the facts of this case. Future litigation involving more explicit promotional claims might reach different conclusions.

Ultimately, the Voyager case signals that the legal standards for determining liability for promotion within the crypto industry are still evolving and remain ambiguous. Mark Cuban may have won this battle, but the larger regulatory fight between crypto innovation and government oversight has just begun.