Mark Cuban Cleared As Court Dismisses Voyager Digital Investor Lawsuit

A US federal judge has tossed a class-action lawsuit brought by former Voyager Digital customers against billionaire Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks, ruling the court did not have the power to hear the case.

The order, entered at the end of December, dismissed the suit in its entirety after finding the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.

Mark Cuban Vs. Voyager: Judge Cites Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction

According to the court filing, Judge Roy K. Altman concluded that Mark Cuban and the Mavericks did not “carry on a business or business venture in Florida” in a way that would let the Miami-area court preside over the matter.

The decision follows extensive jurisdictional discovery and multiple amended complaints that, the judge said, still fell short of establishing the necessary legal ties to Florida. The defense team hailed the ruling as a complete win for their clients.

The suit traces back to 2022, when Voyager Digital filed for Chapter 11 protection after a sharp market downturn and loan defaults. Voyager’s bankruptcy and the fallout led to a wave of litigation by users who said they lost access to funds and were misled by the company’s statements. Reports have noted the firm had roughly $1.3 billion in customer crypto assets implicated during restructuring talks.

Promotion And The $100 Fan Offer

Based on reports from earlier coverage, the dispute focused on a 2021 promotion in which Cuban and the Mavericks partnered with Voyager and offered fans incentives tied to deposits and trading.

Plaintiffs argued the partnership and public backing helped convince customers to use the platform. Other defendants in related Voyager litigation have settled; Cuban and the Mavericks maintained they would fight the claims.

Legal experts say the outcome highlights the limits of suing public figures in forums far from where those figures are based. Courts increasingly demand concrete evidence that a defendant targeted a state before allowing local lawsuits to proceed. This dismissal does not decide whether the promotional statements were true or false; it addresses only where the case could be heard.

Reports have not shown an immediate refiling in another court by the named plaintiffs. Because the judge dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs were denied the chance to proceed in that Florida court but may pursue claims elsewhere if they choose.

Featured image from MediaNews Group via Getty Images, chart from TradingView