TLDR

  • A federal court in Miami issued a $2.8 million defamation judgment in favor of Kevin O’Leary.
  • The damages included $750,000 for emotional distress, $78,000 for reputational harm, and $2 million in punitive damages.
  • The case centered on posts from March 2025 linked to a 2019 fatal boating accident.
  • The judge rejected Armstrong’s attempt to reverse the default judgment, citing proper notice and unreasonable delay.

Kevin O’Leary of “Shark Tank” secured a $2.8 million defamation judgment in a Miami federal court. The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit against Ben Armstrong, a cryptocurrency creator known as “BitBoy.” The court rendered the judgment after Armstrong failed to respond or participate in the case. 

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined damages following a hearing. The court order stated that Armstrong’s conduct justified punitive damages. The judge also found the posts were made with “actual malice.”

Damages Award and What the Court Ordered

The court awarded O’Leary $750,000 for emotional distress, according to the . It also granted $78,000 for harm to his reputation. The judge added $2 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to $2.8 million. The order described O’Leary as a public figure with ongoing media engagements and business connections. 

O’Leary testified that reputational damage could restrict professional bookings and partnerships. He also recounted urgent inquiries from media staff after the posts spread. The court heard expert testimony on online reputational harm and repair costs. The expert relied on documented post views and a discounted audience estimate. 

Using a valuation method, the expert calculated $78,000 in reputational damage. The order also addressed O’Leary’s security concerns following the disclosure of his phone number. O’Leary testified that he increased annual security spending by approximately $200,000. He noted changes to his travel routines and use of alternate studio entrances.

Posts About Boating Accident and Disclosure of Private Phone Number

The dispute arose from posts Armstrong made in March 2025, per court filings. These posts accused O’Leary of involvement in a 2019 fatal boating accident. O’Leary, who was a passenger in the incident, faced no charges. The order noted that O’Leary’s wife was charged after the crash but was exonerated following a trial. 

The judge referenced findings that the other vessel was operating without its lights on. Armstrong’s posts also included O’Leary’s personal phone number, the record stated. One post urged followers to “call a real life murderer.” The order indicated the disclosure led to a brief suspension on the social platform.

O’Leary testified that his phone received hundreds of calls after the number was posted. He said he blocked more than 100 numbers from unknown callers. He also noted he could not change the number due to long-standing professional contacts.

Case Timeline and Failed Effort to Overturn Default

O’Leary filed the defamation lawsuit on March 26, 2025, court dockets show. A process server delivered the summons to Armstrong on March 28, 2025, according to return documents. Armstrong’s deadline to respond was April 18, 2025, but no response was filed. On April 21, 2025, the court ordered Armstrong to respond by April 25, 2025, warning that failure to do so could result in a default judgment. 

Armstrong sent a letter requesting a continuance, stating he was incarcerated in Cobb County, Georgia. The court extended the response deadline to May 2, 2025, and mailed the order. No response was filed, and the clerk entered a default judgment on May 6, 2025. The court later confirmed liability by default and scheduled a damages hearing.

The evidentiary hearing took place on October 30, 2025, but Armstrong, despite being notified, did not attend. He later sought to set aside the default judgment, citing incarceration and bipolar disorder. The court denied the request, finding he had received proper notice, delayed nearly a year, and that overturning the default would prejudice O’Leary.