Home > 2011 > Credit Cards > Kardashian Sisters Win $75 Million Suit Over Prepaid Cards

Kardashian Sisters Win $75 Million Suit Over Prepaid Cards

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 2 Comments

The Kardashian sisters may have behaved badly at the party introducing their new prepaid debit card, as we reported in January. But making them responsible for $75 million in damages over the failure of an entire credit card company is going too far, and violates their freedom of speech, a California judge has ruled.

The sisters, who became famous on the reality TV show “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” teamed up with California-based Revenue Resource Group to create a prepaid card with their faces on it. The card charged a $100 upfront fee, $1 every time consumers added money to the card, and $6 to cancel it.

Those fees drew outrage from many quarters, including an investigation from Connecticut attorney general’s office. Under fire, the Kardashians pulled out of the deal just 20 days after launching the card at a New York nightclub party.

[Related Article: Kardashians May Owe $75 million on Debit Card Deal]

Almost immediately, Revenue Resource Group sued the sisters for breach of contract. Its lawyers argued that by dissing fans at the rollout party, pulling out of the contract, and distancing themselves from the card in blog and Twitter posts, the Kardashians caused the entire company to fail, at a loss of $75 million.

The Kardashians struck back with an anti-SLAPP motion, a rule in California that protects people’s Second Amendment rights when speaking about important public issues.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton agreed with the sisters, according to hollywoodreporter.com. Hamilton dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Revenue Resource Group failed to prove that the company’s demise was caused by the Kardashians’ letter terminating the relationship.

“But it was not merely the Kardashian termination letter that did it—it was the onslaught of negative coverage before and after their statement about the fees and charges associated with the card. In other words, the product’s features themselves caused the problem once they became clearer to the public,” Hamilton wrote in his decision, according to Hollywoodreporter.com.

[Related Article: Short-Lived Kardashian Card’s Impact on Other Cards’ Fees]

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • http://www.clearcash.co.uk Samuel Mond

    Being a Director of a Prepaid card facility in the UK I was shocked at the fees that this Kard was charging and if anything puts the prepaid sector in a negative area. What sceptics need to realise is the need for prepaid whereby mainstream banks have turned their backs on the vulnerable. From my experience and knowing several US prepaid providers such as GreenDot and Purple Diamond, fee strucutres do vary widely and it is down to each individual as to which is the one to go for. Not entirely suprised at the outcome of this case but they should have not even entered in to it with their highly flambuoyant lifestyle! Samuel Mond, Manchester, UK

  • lol wiki

    I am really surprised

  • Pingback: Kardashian Sisters Sued For $75 Million+ | Style Quirk()

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.