Man Sues HBO, Claiming He Is the Pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, Inventor of Bitcoin

But "[n]othing in Plaintiff's conclusory assertions suggest that Plaintiff could plead facts plausibly linking his identity with that of the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto."

From Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain's decision in Swaby v. HBO (S.D.N.Y.) Friday:

Plaintiff Errol Jacob Jones Swaby, a citizen of California who appears pro se, … sues Home Box Office, Inc…. Plaintiff asserts state law claims of libel, and seeks the following alternative relief:

1) that [HBO] cease and desist [its] airing of [a documentary in which another person, not Plaintiff, is credited as the creator of Bitcoin, a person known under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto] or 2) [HBO] can air it with an open apology to Satoshi Nakamoto for airing it and disregard his wish to separate himself from a tool built for civilization, or 3) air it and sign [Plaintiff to] an exclusive contract designating HBO as the only media outlet [Plaintiff] can respond to the public through as well as [to] an agreement to sit with [HBO] for one interview per month for the duration of 1 year. Afterw[a]rds[,] the contract can be renegotiated or withdrawn by either party. The contract must include a payment schedule of 25 million [dollars] upfront and 1 million [dollars] per completed interview.

… [T]he Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis ("IFP")…. The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief….

Plaintiff's relevant allegations are as follows. On October 8, 2024, HBO was scheduled to broadcast a television documentary "that falsely claims [that] another individual is Satoshi Nakamoto, [the pseudonym that is attributed to] the creator of Bitcoin." {The court received Plaintiff's complaint on October 7, 2024, one day before HBO was to allegedly broadcast the documentary at issue.}

Plaintiff, however, is "the real creator of Bitcoin, though [he has] never publicly revealed [his] identity and ha[s] consistently sought to remain [pseudonymous]"; Plaintiff—who is not the person mentioned in the HBO documentary—created Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. {Plaintiff alleges that he "was around ten years old when [he] began working on the project…. [Plaintiff wanted] to separate [his] identity from the tool that is Bitcoin…. [He chose pseudonymity] [t]o keep [himself] and [his] family safe from those who may seek to harm [them]." He also alleges, however, that, "with each attempt to identify [him], it gets increasingly harder for [him] to get recognized."} "HBO's documentary will present … false information despite having no factual basis for the claim. By falsely attributing the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto to someone else, HBO will not only mislead the public but also violate [Plaintiff's] right to remain [pseudonymous]."

Plaintiff states that, by broadcasting its documentary, HBO is also "act[ing] with reckless disregard for the truth, and [its] actions will demonstrate a desire to sensationalize the story at the expense of [his] privacy and the actual facts." While Plaintiff concedes that HBO's documentary "will not reveal [his] true identity, [he states that] HBO's false claims will cause [him] significant harm. The documentary will mislead the public, damage [Plaintiff's] control over [his] legacy, and jeopardize [his] safety." He also states that HBO's actions "will … open the door to harassment and reputational harm, as [he] will be forced to counter these falsehoods to protect [his] identity." "Given the clear reckless disregard for the truth, [Plaintiff] believe[s] HBO's actions constitute libel." Plaintiff "seek[s] to correct the public record and to hold HBO accountable for [its] actions." …

The Court must dismiss Plaintiff's action because Plaintiff's allegations are simply not plausible, as is required by Rule 8…. "[A] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." This standard "is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." …

Plaintiff, in his complaint, and without providing any factual support, declares that he is the creator of Bitcoin, and that he created it under the false name Satoshi Nakamoto, the presumed pseudonym with which the creation of Bitcoin is widely associated…. Plaintiff concedes that HBO (unlike himself) "will not reveal [his] true identity," but that it will still somehow injure him by attributing the creation of Bitcoin, and the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, to someone else. Additionally, among the alternative relief he seeks, and though he alleges that HBO's actions could cause harassment and harm to himself and his family, Plaintiff states that he would allow the broadcast of the documentary, so long as HBO issues an apology or enters into an agreement with him in which it pays him millions of dollars…. Plaintiff's allegations are threadbare and insufficient to state any claim, including any claim of libel, under Rule 8's plausibility pleading standard….

Federal district courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile or where the action is frivolous…. Nothing in Plaintiff's conclusory assertions suggest that Plaintiff could plead facts plausibly linking his identity with that of the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto. In addition, even if he did plead such facts, Plaintiff cannot allege anything showing that, under either New York or California law, HBO has or will, by broadcasting the documentary attributing another person as being Satoshi Nakamoto, defame(d) Plaintiff for the purpose of any type of claim of defamation, including a claim of libel. Thus, because no amendment to Plaintiff's complaint could provide facts sufficient to state a claim, and because his claims are also frivolous, as they arise from clearly baseless allegations and an indisputably meritless legal theory, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint….