Kevin O’Leary, investor and Shark Tank star, has won a $2.8 million defamation judgment against crypto influencer Ben “BitBoy Crypto” Armstrong.
Summary
- Kevin O’Leary won a $2.8 million defamation judgment against crypto influencer Ben Armstrong after a Florida federal court entered a default ruling in his favor.
- The case stemmed from March 2025 social media posts in which Armstrong falsely accused O’Leary of murder and a cover-up tied to a 2019 boating accident.
- Judge Beth Bloom awarded $2,828,000 in damages, including $2 million in punitive damages, after Armstrong failed to respond or appear in court.
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a default judgment in O’Leary’s favor after Armstrong failed to meaningfully defend against the lawsuit.
The case stemmed from a series of social media posts Armstrong made in March 2025, in which he falsely accused O’Leary of murder and claimed O’Leary paid to cover up involvement in a 2019 boating accident that killed two people. O’Leary was never charged in that incident, and his wife was later acquitted at trial.
Kevin O’Leary wins damages against BitBoy
Judge Beth Bloom presided over the case and awarded $2,828,000 in damages after an evidentiary hearing.
As Armstrong did not respond to the lawsuit or appear at the hearing, the court entered default judgment against him on the claims of defamation per se and publication of private facts. Armstrong’s later motion to set aside the default judgment was denied.
The damages awarded include:
- $78,000 for reputational harm,
- $750,000 for emotional distress, and
- $2 million in punitive damages intended to punish Armstrong for the false statements.
The posts at issue also included Armstrong posting O’Leary’s private phone number and urging followers to “call a real life murderer,” which contributed to harassment and increased security concerns for O’Leary.
Armstrong had attempted to argue that his failure to respond was due to mental health issues and incarceration, but the judge rejected those claims, noting Armstrong was served with the complaint and had ample opportunity to participate.
The ruling underscores legal accountability for defamatory conduct online, particularly when claims are made to large audiences on social media.
