Esport and entertainment organization G2 Esports have filed a lawsuit against tech company Bondly, alleging that a failed NFT deal cost up to $5.25 million in damages.
As reported by the Washington Post’s Mikhail Klimentov, G2 Esports have filed a lawsuit against Bondly with the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The esports organization is seeking up to $5,250,000 in damages, caused by a failed two-year partnership that was agreed upon in June 2021. The companies announced their partnership on Twitter at that time, revealing Bondly as G2’s “NFT partner” and promoting their first NFT’s release date: June 30.
Soon after, Bondly allegedly told G2 that they were “past the point of being able to successfully deliver an NFT program.” The companies were unable to reach a compromise to alter or cancel their original partnership, leading to this March 2022 lawsuit.
G2 Esports sue NFT partner Bondly over “botched” deal
NEW: G2 Esports is suing the blockchain tech company Bondly, alleging that it botched a deal for the development and sale of G2 branded NFTs.
It filed the suit on March 16 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.https://t.co/gjdYchABUB
— ℳikhail Klimentov (@LeaderGrev) March 22, 2022
The lawsuit alleges that Bondly failed to meet deadlines for deliverables and fees owed to G2. Further, it notes that the tech company was “misleading” during the original negotiations.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on Esports, Gaming and more.
These fees, which include a $2 million annual rights fee and a $1.25 million advance guarantee fee, were intended to be offset by Bondly’s ability to profit from G2 NFT sales.
While G2’s original blog about the partnership is no longer available online, they did share two contracts in the lawsuit – describing the preceding circumstances.
TO THE MOON 🚀
We welcome Bondly as our NFT partner.
First NFT – 30.06: https://t.co/c45Dfz8jEI pic.twitter.com/HgfRSZirvL
— G2 Esports (@G2esports) June 3, 2021
While G2 quickly promoted the partnership on social media, Bondly allegedly “sought to pause the agreement” soon after receiving their first rights fee invoice. G2 then explained in the lawsuit that they rejected this proposal, leading Bondly to request a termination of the partnership over “G2′s unwillingness to work toward a mutually agreed upon solution.”
It seems that “mutually agreed upon solution” remains unattainable, as G2’s lawsuit seeks the aforementioned $5.25 in potential damages. At present, neither G2 nor Bondly have spoken publicly about the situation.
