Judge dismisses 25 million dollar NFT lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana’s US arm

A New York federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Dolce & Gabbana USA Inc. that had accused the retailer of abandoning a non-fungible token (NFT) project and failing to deliver on promised benefits.

The case was originally filed in May 2024 by Luke Brown and later amended in September. The plaintiff had claimed that both Dolce & Gabbana USA and its Italian parent company Dolce & Gabbana SRL operated as “effectively the same company”.

The brand’s Dubai-based partner UNXD and Italian firm Bluebear Italia, the creator of the NFT collection, were also named as defendants.

In the latest court documents, the 25 million dollar lawsuit was found to be insufficient on the grounds that Dolce & Gabbana USA was the only US-based defendant cited, and was therefore not liable for the allegations against its parent firm.

In the suit, Brown claimed that Dolce & Gabbana did not follow through on certain perks that were promised upon the purchase of an NFT from its ‘DGFamily’ collection.

Among the benefits initially offered were that of physical clothing, access to events and digital outfits, all of which were supposed to be delivered each quarter. According to Brown, however, the brand had “failed to provide the complete set of benefits” promised.

Brown also accused Dolce & Gabbana of delaying the delivery of the NFTs by a week, causing their value to decrease by 5,800 dollars. The suit says the delays occurred when the brand failed to secure approval for certain assets from UNXD.

Dolce & Gabbana USA filed to dismiss the suit in January 2025, stating that as it was a separate subsidiary to its Italian parent, which had allegedly established the NFT project, it could not be held accountable.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald had determined that the suit lacked specific facts to prove the US entity was directly involved in the project, meaning that it was “plainly insufficient to withstand D&G USA’s motion to dismiss”.

Buchwald added: “The court finds that plaintiff has not adequately alleged that D&G SRL completely dominated D&G USA even if D&G SRL allegedly shared some employees and office space with D&G USA.”