Nathan Ferguson 
It feels as if whenever the ‘meme’ cryptocurrency, Dogecoin (DOGE), is brought up, controversy is not far behind. Whether it be through Elon Musk’s sporadic tweets and unconditional (some would say a tad excessive) support for Dogecoin, or even via its own creator Jackson Palmer going on a rant about how cryptocurrencies are really just an oppressive tool used by right-wing capitalists to avoid taxes and regulations, the altcoin has certainly become quite the center of attention as of late.
Now, another controversy focused around Dogecoin has occurred, like Coinbase, a well-known crypto exchange, is facing a new class-action lawsuit based on the platform’s alleged ‘deceptive advertisement campaign,’ which had ended up costing clients millions of dollars. A plaintiff has therefore sued Coinbase and wishes to be paid $5 million to cover damages that have taken place as a result of the apparently misleading DOGE campaign.
Massive deception or huge oversight?
The plaintiff involved in all this, named David Suski, had stated as per the legal document that he had been tricked into investing $100 in DOGE for trading purposes in order to participate in a sweepstakes offer (worth $1.2 million) on Coinbase. However, David claims that the exchange had neglected to mention that it was technically possible for users to enter the sweepstakes without having to make the initial $100 purchase, thereby making the ad campaign both deceptive and misleading, according to him.
Users had begun trading DOGE on Coinbase back on the 3rd of June 2021, which was when the altcoin had originally become available on the exchange. On that day, an email had been sent out by the company which provided details about the aforementioned sweepstakes, with the advert stating ‘Trade Dogecoin To Win Dogecoin.’ Details on how to enter these sweepstakes had been provided in the email, and the ‘rules and details’ section had stated that entry is also possible through the utilization of a three by 5-inch index card. This card would then require users’ names, phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, and finally, date of birth before being usable.
David is not happy
David claims that the ad campaign was hence misleading as there was the possibility of entering the sweepstakes completely free of charge through the abovementioned index card method. He then concluded that the campaign was designed to mislead users into spending $100 DOGE, which is highly deceptive.
The plaintiff states that had the advertisement just been clear about everything from the beginning, there would not have been any issues. He also said that had he known about the index cards, he would have chosen this option instead of paying the $100 fee.
Naturally, David is not happy with what has transpired, and he is looking to be paid $5 million to cover damages for himself along with millions of affected users.
