Rapper and actor O’Shea Jackson, professionally known as Ice Cube, lost his day in court (for now) on claims of false endorsement against trading platform Robinhood because he failed to plausibly allege that Robinhood’s use of his image and catchphrase implied endorsement. Robinhood had published a newsletter on its website “Robinhood Snacks” which featured an article discussing market corrections for technology stocks with an alteration of Ice Cube’s lyric and catchphrase “Check yo self before you wreck yourself”—here, “Correct yourself before you wreck yourself”—along with the below image of Ice Cube from Are We Done Yet? (2007):
In response, Ice Cube filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Robinhood’s article falsely implied that he had endorsed Robinhood and its services. He claimed false endorsement under the Lanham Act as well as misappropriation of likeness and unfair competition under California law. Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and a motion to strike the state law claims under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute as protected speech.
As noted by the court, to establish standing a plaintiff must demonstrate an “injury in fact,” meaning the plaintiff suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Citing Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1110 (9th Cir. 1992), the court further held that “a celebrity whose endorsement of a product is implied through the imitation of a distinctive attribute of the celebrity’s identity, has standing to sue for false endorsement” under the Lanham Act.
While the court acknowledged that a celebrity could establish standing under Waits, Robinhood argued that Ice Cube failed to plausibly plead (1) his celebrity status, (2) he was deprived of compensation, and (3) use of his identity and catchphrase implied endorsement.
In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court found that Ice Cube sufficiently pleaded celebrity status. It discredited Robinhood’s argument that Ice Cube lacked such status because he relied on his music in the 1980s and movies in the 1990s. The court questioned why Robinhood would have used Ice Cube’s image and catchphrase in the first place if he had no status as a celebrity. The court also found that Ice Cube robustly alleged he had commercialized his celebrity status and therefore adequately pleaded economic injury.
In the end, however, the court held that Ice Cube did not plausibly plead that the use of his likeness or catchphrase suggested he endorsed Robinhood’s products. Although Ice Cube cited Robinhood’s other celebrity endorsements from rappers Nas and Jay-Z, the court found those endorsements were irrelevant. It also contrasted Robinhood’s use of his likeness and catchphrase with other cases cited by Ice Cube, which all involved explicit endorsements. Furthermore, without explaining the distinction, the court noted that the article was part of a newsletter, not an “advertisement” as Ice Cube claimed, and that under such circumstances no other court had found standing. Thus, the court concluded that Ice Cube lacked standing because “he did not allege how Robinhood’s use of his identity created the misapprehension that the plaintiff sponsored, endorsed, or is affiliated with Robinhood.”
Although the court granted Robinhood’s motion to dismiss, it allowed Ice Cube to amend his complaint, which he amended and refiled on July 6, 2021. Whether Ice Cube has now plausibly pleaded endorsement remains to be seen.
The case is Jackson v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., No. 21-CV-02304-LB (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2021).
