In a night submitting in Manhattan federal court docket, attorneys for Musk and his electrical automotive firm Tesla Inc referred to as the lawsuit by Dogecoin buyers a “fanciful work of fiction” over Musk’s “innocuous and often silly tweets” about Dogecoin.

The attorneys mentioned the buyers by no means defined how Musk meant to defraud anybody or what dangers he hid, and that his statements akin to “Dogecoin Rulz” and “no highs, no lows, only Doge” have been too obscure to assist a fraud declare.

“There is nothing unlawful about tweeting words of support for, or funny pictures about, a legitimate cryptocurrency that continues to hold a market cap of nearly $10 billion,” Musk’s attorneys mentioned. “This court should put a stop to plaintiffs’ fantasy and dismiss the complaint.”

In a footnote, the attorneys additionally rejected the buyers’ declare that Dogecoin certified as a safety.

The buyers’ lawyer, Evan Spencer, mentioned in an e-mail: “We are more confident than ever that our case will be successful.”

Investors accused Musk, the world’s second-richest individual in keeping with Forbes, of intentionally driving up Dogecoin’s worth greater than 36,000% over two years after which letting it crash.

They mentioned this generated billions of {dollars} of revenue at different Dogecoin buyers’ expense, at the same time as Musk knew the forex lacked intrinsic worth.

Investors additionally pointed to Musk’s look on a “Weekend Update” phase of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” the place, portraying a fictitious monetary skilled, he referred to as Dogecoin “a hustle.”

The $258 billion damages determine is triple the estimated decline in Dogecoin’s market worth within the 13 months earlier than the lawsuit was filed.

Dogecoin Foundation, a nonprofit, can be a defendant and searching for the lawsuit’s dismissal.

Musk’s posts on Twitter, which he owns, have prompted a number of lawsuits.

He received a court docket victory on Feb. 3 when a San Francisco jury discovered him not chargeable for tweeting in August 2018 that he had organized financing to take Tesla personal.

The case is Johnson et al v. Musk et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-05037. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by William Mallard)