No Preliminary Injunction Against Publishing Billionaire's Cryptocurrency Asset Details

From Judge Colm Connolly's opinion yesterday in Sun v. Bloomberg, L.P. (D. Del.):

On August 11, 2025, after months of working to verify Sun's assets, Bloomberg published Sun's profile in its Billionaires Index, "a ranked list of the world's richest people." Two sentences of the profile are at issue here:

Sun owns more than 60 billion Tronix (also referred to as TRON or TRX), the cryptocurrency native to Tron, according to an analysis of financial information provided by representatives of Sun in February 2025…. Sun also owns about 17,000 Bitcoin, 224,000 Ether, and 700 million Tether, according to the same analysis.

According to Sun, (1) Bloomberg's publication of "the alleged specific amounts of cryptocurrencies" he owns constitutes a public disclosure of private facts, and (2) Bloomberg is estopped from publishing "financial information regarding the value of specific assets and details related to [his] ownership of those assets" because it promised him that it would not publicize "the amounts of specific cryptocurrency" he owns and that it "would take measures to protect [his] Confidential Financial Information from disclosure."

Within hours of Bloomberg's publication of the profile, Sun filed in this Court his initial Complaint  and a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He withdrew the motion three days later because, according to Sun, the parties were "engaged in discussions" that may have mooted the motion. Those discussions apparently did not go well, however, because on September 11, Sun filed the instant motion, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring Bloomberg (1) "to remove the amounts of any specific cryptocurrency owned by Mr. Sun from any of its online publication," (2) "to retract its claim that Mr. Sun owns 60 billion Tronix and controls the majority of its supply," and (3) to refrain from "publishing the amounts of any specific cryptocurrency owned by Mr. Sun in any future publication." …

Sun has not made a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his promissory estoppel claim. To prevail on this claim, Sun would have to "demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence" that (1) Bloomberg made a promise; (2) it was the reasonable expectation of Bloomberg to induce action or forbearance on the part of Sun; (3) Sun reasonably relied on the promise and took action to his detriment; and (4) such promise is binding because injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

Sun makes several attempts to establish the first element of his promissory estoppel claim-that Bloomberg made a promise. Each fails. He first asserts that in the conversations that "predated his decision to participate in the Billionaires Index, Bloomberg made express promises that any information provided to Bloomberg would only be used to verify his personal assets." In support of this proposition, Sun cites his own declaration in which he states that Muyao Shen, a Bloomberg reporter, "told [him] that any information [he] provided to Bloomberg for the purpose of verifying [his] personal wealth would be kept strictly confidential and would only be used to verify [his] personal assets for the Billionaires Index profile."

Bloomberg counters with declarations of its own. Muyao Shen, the reporter who Sun asserts made express promises regarding confidentiality, attests in a declaration that she did not "make any promises of confidentiality regarding any aspects of Bloomberg's coverage of Mr. Sun." Two members of Bloomberg's Billionaires Index team, Dylan Sloan and Tom Maloney, also attest that they never "promised confidentiality in connection with the information Mr. Sun and his team were sharing with Bloomberg for the Bloomberg Billionaires Index." On this record, I cannot say that Sun has made a clear showing that Bloomberg "made express promises that any information provided to Bloomberg would only be used to verify his personal assets." [Discussion of further claims that Bloomberg had promised confidentiality omitted. -EV] …

In short, on this record, Sun has not shown clearly that Bloomberg made a promise of confidentiality. He therefore has not shown clearly that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his promissory estoppel claim.

Next up is Sun's claim for public disclosure of private facts. To prevail on this claim, Sun would need to prove: (1) public disclosure, (2) of a private fact, which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person, and which is not of legitimate public concern. Regarding the third element, Sun asserts that Bloomberg's publication of his cryptocurrency assets "to millions of online readers and [threats] to further publicize it in an additional article" would be highly offensive to a reasonable person because "the knowledge of what cryptocurrency [he] owns makes him an increased target for hacking, phishing, social engineering, kidnapping, or bodily injury." But before Bloomberg published Sun's profile, other entities, including Nansen, provided similar (if not more detailed) estimates of Sun's assets. And Sun himself has disclosed far more specific information about his Bitcoin holdings than what Bloomberg published:

Accordingly, at this stage, I cannot say that Bloomberg's publication of estimates of Sun's cryptocurrency holdings—information that is arguably less specific than what other entities and Sun himself have made public—would be objectively offensive to a reasonable person. Thus, Sun has failed to show clearly that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his public disclosure of private facts claims….

Jeffrey J. Lyons, Isabelle Corbett Sterling, Teresa Goody Guillen, and Katherine L. McKnight (Baker & Hostetler LLP) and James M. Yoch, Jr. and Robert M. Vrana (Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP) represent Bloomberg.

UPDATE: I originally titled this post "no liability for publishing billionaire's cryptocurrency asset details," because the court's reasoning suggests that there's likely no basis for liability under either of the plaintiff's theories. But technically the decision was just that there was no likelihood of success on the merits (since the court was asked to issue a preliminary injunction), so I decided to update the title accordingly.