TLDR
- O’Leary was awarded $2.8 million for defamation after false claims by Armstrong.
- Armstrong’s false allegations led to emotional distress and harm to O’Leary’s reputation.
- The court found Armstrong acted with actual malice in the defamation case.
- Armstrong failed to respond to the lawsuit, leading to the default judgment against him.
Kevin O’Leary, the well-known entrepreneur and investor from Shark Tank, has won a significant defamation lawsuit against crypto influencer Ben ‘BitBoy’ Armstrong. A federal court in Miami awarded O’Leary $2.8 million after Armstrong made false and harmful claims online. The case stemmed from posts Armstrong made in 2025 accusing O’Leary of involvement in a fatal boating accident that occurred in 2019.
The lawsuit, filed by O’Leary in response to the accusations, was decided by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Armstrong was found guilty of defamation after making posts that accused O’Leary of committing murder and paying to cover it up. These false claims were not only damaging to O’Leary’s reputation but also led to personal distress and increased security concerns. Armstrong did not respond to the lawsuit, and the court ruled in favor of O’Leary.
Armstrong’s False Claims and Emotional Distress
The defamatory posts, made in March 2025, accused O’Leary of being involved in a deadly boating accident in which he was a passenger. The accident occurred in 2019, and O’Leary’s wife had been cleared of any wrongdoing following a trial. However, Armstrong’s posts painted a false picture of O’Leary’s involvement, which led to significant harm.
The court’s judgment awarded O’Leary $750,000 for emotional distress caused by the defamation. Additionally, $78,000 was granted for harm to his reputation, which was affected by Armstrong’s false claims. The court found that Armstrong’s posts, which were seen by over 150,000 people, were both reckless and harmful.
In addition to financial compensation, the court imposed $2 million in punitive damages. These damages were intended to punish Armstrong for his malicious actions and serve as a deterrent for others who might attempt similar behavior.
Armstrong’s Failure to Respond and Default Judgment
Ben Armstrong did not respond to the lawsuit or attend any hearings, despite being properly served with legal notices. The court found that Armstrong acted with actual malice, and his lack of response led to the default judgment. He tried to have the judgment overturned, citing mental health issues and incarceration, but his requests were denied.
The court noted that Armstrong had enough time to respond to the lawsuit, as he had been notified almost a year prior. His failure to engage with the legal process ultimately worked against him, resulting in the court’s decision to uphold the default judgment in O’Leary’s favor.
Court’s Ruling and Armstrong’s Request for Reversal
In his attempt to have the judgment reversed, Armstrong argued that his mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder, should excuse his failure to respond. He also cited his incarceration as another reason for not attending the legal proceedings. However, the court found that Armstrong had been adequately informed of the case and had ample time to act.
The ruling underscored the seriousness with which the court viewed Armstrong’s actions. The court determined that reversing the judgment would unfairly prejudice O’Leary, who had already presented expert reports and made preparations for the trial. As a result, Armstrong’s attempt to overturn the decision was rejected.
This case serves as a reminder of the consequences of making false and harmful accusations online, especially when the accused has suffered significant personal and professional damage as a result. The decision marks a decisive victory for O’Leary in his fight to protect his reputation against baseless attacks.





