Image credit: Shutterstock
Iggy Azalea is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over MOTHER, the Solana-based memecoin she promoted after its 2024 launch.
The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York on May 5 and names Azalea, whose legal name is Amethyst Amelia Kelly. Lead plaintiff Kenneth Kolbrak claims buyers were misled by promotional statements about the token’s utility, integrations and market support.
Kolbrak Claims Buyers Relied on MOTHER Utility Promises
The complaint alleges that Azalea promoted MOTHER as more than a celebrity memecoin and pointed to future use cases that did not materialize.
Those alleged claims included business integrations, payment use cases and support from market makers. Burwick Law, which is representing the plaintiffs, said those statements helped fuel demand before the token’s price collapsed.
Kolbrak claims he lost several hundred dollars after buying MOTHER. He says he would not have invested, or would have paid less, if the risks and the project’s actual prospects had been properly disclosed.
MOTHER Has Fallen About 99.5% From Peak
MOTHER launched during the celebrity memecoin boom and briefly drew heavy attention because of Azalea’s direct involvement on social media.
The token has since fallen about 99.5% from its peak, according to reports on the lawsuit. That decline is central to the plaintiffs’ case, which argues that buyers were harmed after relying on statements about the token’s future utility.
The complaint seeks damages for investors who bought MOTHER and later suffered losses. Reports said the filing also seeks legal fees and potentially triple damages, though the court has not ruled on the claims.
Proposed Class Still Needs Court Approval
The lawsuit does not prove wrongdoing. Azalea and the other defendants will have a chance to respond, and the case still has to clear early procedural hurdles before any class is certified.
The filing adds to scrutiny of celebrity-backed token promotions, especially when public statements include claims about utility, payments, integrations or market support.
For now, the case centers on whether MOTHER buyers were misled by promotional claims and whether those claims played a role in their losses after the token’s sharp decline.
