The e-commerce platform Cameo has spent the past decade offering a highly desired product. For a fee, customers can purchase a short, personalized video from a large list of reality show participants, social media influencers, professional athletes, and television and movie actors. Whether for a birthday, a child’s birth, or a fundraiser, recipients get the thrill of someone with star power referring directly to them and offering anything from congratulations to encouraging words. But does a Cameo “talent user” have any legal responsibility or liability if someone uses the video as part of a criminal enterprise?
The answer varies by situation, but in the case of former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, the courts answered with a resounding “no” in a July 2026 dismissal of a pro se lawsuit seeking damages for his “pep talk” Cameo video, which scammers used as a “celebrity endorsement.” In an additional step, on October 8, 2026, Spicer filed an anti-SLAPP suit against former plaintiff Renea Sutton for damaging his brand’s reputation and goodwill. His complaint waives a jury trial and asks the court to rule on his request for attorneys’ fees and damages under New York Civil Rights Law § 70-a.
Can an advertisement endorser’s liability apply if the person in question claims they didn’t knowingly support a fraudulent small business or product? While the suit against Spicer was dismissed, Southern District of New York (SDNY) District Judge Lewis Liman did so without prejudice, noting that the court had no way of knowing if Sutton could find another source of evidence confirming Spicer’s knowledgeable participation in the Lightning Shared Scooter Company’s (LSSC) pyramid scheme. With Sutton and other victims in class-action lawsuits against LSSC unable to bring the unknown masterminds behind the scam to justice, Spicer’s suit might well have been a warning shot to prevent further legal action against him.
What Is Cameo and Who Owns the Videos?
Unless you’re a big fan of TikTok creators and reality TV stars, the Cameo leaderboard displaying the talent users who receive the most video requests may make you wonder who they are and why someone would pay them (in some cases, hundreds of dollars) for anything. Since the site's launch in 2016, over two million Cameos have been bought and paid for, so there’s clearly an audience. While you might not be able to send your mother a birthday Cameo by George Clooney, it can be a source of income for lesser-known actors and actresses, as well as other celebrities like professional wrestlers, infomercial hosts, and online content creators.
Cameo’s terms of service stipulate that all videos purchased through their site are the property of the talent user (the celebrity), and that the buyer is “buying the right (or license) to use it, not the actual CAMEO Video itself.” The TOS also differentiates between Cameo videos and Cameo Business videos, with the latter allowing the “promotion and/or endorsement of a product, service, brand, or business” by the talent user, who must be given full disclosure of what they’re voicing support for. The TOS reflect changes to the verbiage made after Cameo paid a settlement to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 30 states over the use of videos that failed to identify paid endorsements in 2024.
How a “Pep Talk” Became a Fake Endorsement
LSSC presented itself to victims as a legitimate enterprise that let investors buy timeshares in electric scooters used in places like Hong Kong, with profits made on rentals. It also offered its own cryptocurrency investment platform and began convincing investors to open “offices” and storefronts in the United States, even though nobody had met any of LSSC’s alleged company officers.
As with most MLM pyramid schemes, early investors were rewarded for referrals and got access to their “profits” from scooter usage. By 2025, as consumer complaints about LSSC began to roll in, those trying to withdraw their alleged gains were told they’d need to pay an additional fee, or that the site was under investigation for fraud and all funds were frozen. The investors’ money, which had been converted to crypto, was nowhere to be seen.
Spicer, who claims all proceeds from his Cameos support charitable causes, received a request in April 2025 to give a “pep talk” for “a friend” of LSSC, without knowing what LSSC was or that it would be used as a false advertisement in an online scam. He completed it on April 28, saying he offered “general encouragement about the growth of LSSC . . . apparently that’s a he,” urged the recipient to “keep working hard,” and wished the recipient well. His filings state that he never recommended investing in LSSC, described it as a safe investment, or claimed to have done due diligence on it.
LSSC used Spicer’s video in its public investment campaign, claiming on social media apps like Instagram and WhatsApp that Spicer was “officially giving high praise to LSSC and our mission” and that his message showed why they should be part of LSSC. According to Sutton and others, this alleged celebrity endorsement led them to believe LSSC was a legitimate investment.
What Does Sean Spicer’s Win Mean for Cameo Talent?
Several days after filing her pro se lawsuit against LSSC on September 19, 2025, Sutton added Spicer and former pro basketball players Stephon Marbury and Nick Young, along with 20 John and Jane Does, in an amended complaint six days later. Charging the defendants with claims that included RICO violations, conspiracy to commit fraud, and unjust enrichment, Sutton sought at least $45 million in damages.
The court granted Spicer’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on July 10, 2026, agreeing that Sutton failed to provide evidence that he knowingly participated in LSSC’s scam. Spicer, who had offered to join Sutton as a plaintiff against LSSC in December 2025 if she dropped the suit against him (she passed), filed an anti-SLAPP suit after she didn’t file an amended complaint within the 60-day window. Anti-SLAPP suits are intended to protect free speech from retaliation.
While Cameo’s TOS clearly absolves the company of liability for videos contracted through its site, it hasn’t been firmly determined whether talent users enjoy the same level of immunity. Spicer may have had the suit against him dismissed, but that may have stemmed primarily from a weak pro se case. It’s unlikely that most, if any, Cameo talent users are going to take the time and effort to vet every request they receive, but they may want to think twice before offering anything that may be perceived as an endorsement.
