A federal judge killed a defamation lawsuit in less than 24 hours, rejecting an attempt by the Ponzi scheme My Advertising Pays to silence its critics.

My Advertising Pays filed the lawsuit on April 6th in Illinois District Court against the TaraTalks blog, naming company owner Michael Deese as a co-plaintiff. The company alleged that TaraTalks published "continuous defamatory and libelous statements" that damaged both the company's reputation and Deese's standing as a businessman.

The core complaint: TaraTalks called My Advertising Pays a Ponzi scheme.

According to court filings, My Advertising Pays is an Anguilla international business company. Deese, a U.S. citizen, resides in Harrison County, Louisiana. The company was originally incorporated in Mississippi on September 13, 2013, then dissolved and reincorporated under Anguilla law in March 2014.

The lawsuit hinged on diversity jurisdiction—a legal doctrine allowing federal courts to hear cases when plaintiffs and defendants live in different states. But there was a glaring problem: My Advertising Pays acknowledged in court papers that it didn't actually know where the TaraTalks author lived. Filing a case on diversity jurisdiction while admitting ignorance about the defendant's residency made the claim legally nonsensical.

The judge saw through it immediately.

My Advertising Pays had threatened legal action against TaraTalks back in February, a threat the company made good on in April. The timing wasn't random. By 2014 and 2015, critical coverage had intensified. Executive Tony Booth took point addressing what the company called "inflammatory and libelous comments" posted online. After investigating, My Advertising Pays concluded that TaraTalks was the primary source of these statements.

BehindMLM's coverage of the lawsuit pointed out the jurisdictional absurdity. The publication had itself published a review of My Advertising Pays in May 2014, concluding it was a Ponzi scheme based on the company's offering of a $60 return on $49.99 investments. Simple math: that's unsustainable.

My Advertising Pays framed its critics as hostile actors who emerged around April 2014 and became increasingly aggressive. The company claimed that early critics were "relatively civil" but that later bloggers "viciously attacked" the company's integrity and its executives' morality.

The judge's swift dismissal—within 24 hours—sent a clear message: courts won't become tools for companies to suppress legitimate criticism, especially when the legal foundation for the case crumbles under basic scrutiny.

The ruling handed a win to TaraTalks and underscored a fundamental principle: you can't sue your way out of a bad reputation, and you certainly can't do it when your own filing doesn't make legal sense.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of the My Advertising Pays lawsuit against TaraTalks?
A federal judge dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by My Advertising Pays against the TaraTalks blog within 24 hours. The court rejected the company's attempt to silence criticism, particularly regarding allegations that it operates as a Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit, filed in Illinois District Court on April 6th, named TaraTalks and blog owner Michael Deese as defendants.

Why did My Advertising Pays file the lawsuit?
My Advertising Pays filed the lawsuit claiming that TaraTalks published "continuous defamatory and libelous statements" damaging the company's reputation and Michael Deese's business standing. The core complaint focused on TaraTalks labeling My Advertising Pays as a Ponzi scheme, which the company disputed.

**Who were the parties involved in

🔗 Related Articles

- EmpiresX sued for $40 million in securities fraud by SEC
- Scott Morris settles Ponzi Patrol defamation lawsuit
- Entry of Default recorded against Forsage scammers
- How Control Finance scammers duped Karl-Joonatan Mets
- Judicial investigation confirms BBOM is a Ponzi scheme (Brazil)