Three buyers of the ME token filed a class action lawsuit on June 16, 2026, in the federal court for the Eastern District of New York against Magic Eden, the ME Foundation, and the company's founders.
The plaintiffs claim the developers promoted ME as an asset with real-world use cases, but most of the advertised features either never launched or showed up far later than promised. The lawsuit covers everyone who bought or acquired the token during the disputed period.
An Unusual Legal Strategy
The plaintiffs don't classify ME as a security and don't lean on SEC logic, instead building their case on New York consumer protection law. This approach lets them treat the token as an ordinary product that failed to match its advertised features, and it sidesteps the debate over whether ME qualifies as a security.
Promises That Never Materialized
As the plaintiffs tell it, Magic Eden and its founders presented ME as the economic engine of the platform. Buyers were told the token would work across several blockchains, give them voting rights in governance through the ME DAO system, deliver rewards for trading and staking, and provide a share of revenue-sharing and buyback programs.
These promises spread through the foundation's official materials, founder interviews, social media campaigns, listings on Binance and Coinbase, and promotional events — including yacht cruises around New York Harbor during industry conferences.
“The defendants created demand by presenting ME as a serious product with real features, not a speculative token with no use,” reads one passage from the lawsuit.
Reality, the plaintiffs argue, drifted away from the marketing.
— The multichain strategy, billed as the core of the token's value, was abandoned: in February 2026, Magic Eden narrowed its focus to Solana alone and shut down its marketplaces for Bitcoin and Ethereum;
— governance voting only went live nine months after launch, revenue sharing rolled out late, staking rewards didn't line up with their descriptions, and trading rewards shrank into seasonal payouts rather than the steady stream that was advertised;
— the wallet for receiving tokens was later shut down over security problems.
Public statements clashed with internal plans. In late 2025, Magic Eden expanded onto new blockchains, including Monad, even though — according to the plaintiffs — the company was already weighing an exit from every network except Solana. Buyback programs funded by the platform's revenue were announced, then revised or scrapped after earnings dropped.
How the Damages Are Calculated
The plaintiffs break the harm into three types: overpayment at purchase driven by inflated expectations, losses during the time they held the tokens, and damages from supplying the company with liquidity and data without ever receiving the promised product. They are seeking compensation for the overpayment and the return of the gains the defendants pocketed while failing to deliver the advertised features.