Viral influencer Haliey Welch is now at the center of a federal legal battle after being added as a primary defendant. The firm Burwick Law formalized this action within a class-action meme coin lawsuit, alleging that the internet personality received substantial payments to promote the HAWK token, an asset that collapsed catastrophically last year, according to recent court documents.
The litigation filed in the Eastern District of New York directly implicates Welch, her manager Johnnie Forster, and their company 16 Minutes LLC. According to the updated complaint, it is alleged that the influencer received up to 325,000 dollars for her participation, broken down into an upfront payment of 125,000 dollars and milestone bonuses. Furthermore, lawyers maintain that the Solana-based token was specifically designed to crash minutes after its launch. In fact, the market capitalization briefly skyrocketed to 490 million dollars before plunging 93% almost instantly, leaving investors with massive losses.
Will new forensic evidence definitively link the influencer to the fraud?
This case has taken a critical turn due to the presentation of a “Meme Token Creation and Monetization Agreement” signed with Memetic Labs. On the other hand, evidence suggests that Welch went from being a passive sponsor to an essential component of the marketing funnel. Likewise, the lawsuit argues that promises of utility, such as integration with her Talk Tuah podcast, were technically unfeasible from the start. Blockchain forensic analysis links insider wallets to other notorious alleged rug pulls, including failed projects like LIBRA and TRUMP.
Welch’s legal situation has become turbulent since the project’s initial collapse in December 2024. Although she issued a public apology and claimed to cooperate with authorities, this new civil action seeks to hold her financially accountable. Consequently, retail investors who trusted her image face an uncertain path to recover funds lost in this scheme. This event highlights the inherent risks of investing in volatile cryptocurrencies based solely on the viral fame of internet personalities without technical financial experience.
The litigation marks a significant precedent by attempting to reclassify the role of celebrity promoters in the digital asset ecosystem. While Welch’s legal team insists she acted without knowledge of technical operations, the court must evaluate the validity of the new evidence presented. Finally, the judicial process is expected to establish clearer limits on celebrity liability when promoting speculative financial products, warning about the consequences of participating in get-rich-quick schemes.
