August 18, 2026  ·  Complaint filed July 30, 2026  ·  United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 25-cv-81197-MIDDLEBROOKS

Newman News, By David Brunk

Read the order

Defense Distributed v. Elik Court Dismisses RICO Conspiracy and False Ad Claims Over FEDCAD Meme

The court granted summary judgment to defendants John Elik, Peter Celentano, John Lettman, and Alexander Holladay on July 1, 2026, dismissing all claims in Defense Distributed, et al. v. Elik, et al.. The plaintiffs—Defense Distributed and DD Foundation, operators of DEFCAD, a subscription-based website for 3D-printed firearm files—had alleged that the defendants engaged in a civil RICO conspiracy, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and tortious interference with business relationships under Florida law by disseminating the "FEDCAD meme," which falsely asserted that DEFCAD had been hacked and that the plaintiffs mishandled user data.

The order, entered in response to the defendants’ motion (DE 147), found no evidence that the defendants’ conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs’ alleged economic harm. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants knew the identities of DEFCAD subscribers or customers, or that any customer altered their behavior due to the defendants’ actions. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ republication of the meme created an intervening cause, breaking the causal chain required for liability under the claims asserted. As the court explained, citing Miller v. Sconyers, "an intervening cause is any cause which breaks the chain of causation from original negligent act."

The case was dismissed in full, with the court granting summary judgment on the tortious interference claim and dismissing the civil RICO conspiracy and false advertising claims as a matter of law.

Alleged Mechanism: Dissemination of the "FEDCAD Meme" and Its Impact

The order granting summary judgment describes the core dispute as centering on the "FEDCAD meme," which the defendants posted online beginning in 2023. According to the filing, the meme falsely asserted that DEFCAD—a subscription-based website for 3D-printed firearm files operated by the plaintiffs—had been hacked and that the plaintiffs had mishandled user data. The plaintiffs alleged that the meme’s dissemination harmed their business by driving away customers and designers, though the court found no evidence linking the defendants’ conduct to specific economic losses. The court ruled that "wire fraud requires a scheme to obtain money or property through deception."

Three of the defendants—Peter Celentano, John Lettman, and Alexander Holladay—admitted in the record to posting the meme online (Compl. ¶98 (DE 165)). The plaintiffs did not dispute that a DEFCAD employee later uploaded the meme to their own website, an act the court later characterized as an "intervening cause" that broke the chain of liability.

The plaintiffs pointed to declarations and surveys to support their claim of harm. Eric Goldhaber, a designer who uploaded files to DEFCAD, stated in a declaration that he stopped contributing designs due to the online campaign but did not identify other affected customers (Compl. ¶ Goldhaber (DE 157)). Customer exit surveys cited reasons for leaving such as cost, billing, and privacy concerns, but none referenced the defendants or linked their decisions to the meme. The court noted that "Plaintiffs identify no customer who cancelled a subscription, declined to purchase a product, or otherwise changed behavior because of any Defendant."

The plaintiffs’ expert witness, Jason Tyra, attributed some of the plaintiffs’ economic harm to the meme’s general online presence but did not tie the losses to the defendants’ specific actions. The court found this insufficient to establish proximate cause, citing the requirement for a direct connection between the alleged misconduct and the harm. Specifically, Tyra’s report failed to analyze interference with specific relationships or identify customers who saw the meme (Compl. ¶ Tyra (DE 147-8)).

Parties and Roles: Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Key Non-Parties

The order granting summary judgment names plaintiffs and defendants, while two non-party witnesses supplied the evidentiary record that the court ultimately found insufficient.

Plaintiffs Defense Distributed and DD Foundation operate DEFCAD, a subscription-based website that hosts downloadable files for 3D-printed firearms. The complaint alleges that the site’s user base and revenue were damaged when defendants disseminated the “FEDCAD meme,” which falsely claimed DEFCAD had been hacked and user data mishandled. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any qualifying business relationship under Florida law.

Defendants John Elik, Peter Celentano, John Lettman, and Alexander Holladay are the four individuals named in the order. The complaint alleges that these defendants engaged in a coordinated effort to harm the plaintiffs’ business through the dissemination of the meme.

Two non-party witnesses provided the only direct evidence of harm. A designer who uploaded files to DEFCAD stated in a declaration that he stopped contributing because of the online campaign, although he did not identify any other affected customers (Compl. ¶ Goldhaber (DE 157)). The plaintiffs’ expert witness, Jason Tyra, submitted a report attributing plaintiffs’ economic harm to the meme’s general online presence but did not connect the losses to the defendants’ specific conduct or identify customers who saw the meme (Compl. ¶ Tyra (DE 147-8)).

Civil RICO Conspiracy

The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ civil RICO conspiracy claim as a matter of law, ruling that the record failed to establish either a qualifying predicate act or proximate cause under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The court rejected this theory, holding that "wire fraud requires a scheme to obtain money or property through deception." The plaintiffs had not shown any such scheme directed at DEFCAD subscribers or customers, nor had they demonstrated that the defendants’ actions proximately caused the alleged harm.

The court further found that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were too remote to satisfy RICO’s causation requirement. In its words, "injuries that are derivative, remote, or dependent on the independent decisions of third parties do not satisfy RICO’s causation requirement." The record contained no evidence that any Defendant knew the identity of any DEFCAD subscriber, customer, or designer, or that any customer altered their behavior in response to Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiffs identified no specific customer who canceled a subscription, declined to purchase a product, or otherwise changed their conduct due to the meme, and the court concluded that generalized reputational harm was insufficient to establish proximate cause under the standard set forth in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014).

The court found that any harm was either speculative or attributable to intervening causes, including Plaintiffs’ own republication of the meme. Without evidence of a scheme to obtain money or property from DEFCAD users, or proof that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused the alleged harm, the court granted summary judgment on the RICO claim.

False Advertising Under the Lanham Act

The court granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ false-advertising claim, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause between Defendants’ dissemination of the “FEDCAD meme” and any economic harm. The court noted that “Plaintiffs identify no customer who cancelled a subscription, declined to purchase a product, or otherwise changed behavior because of any Defendant.”

Plaintiffs alleged that the meme contained materially false statements—namely, that DEFCAD had been hacked and that Plaintiffs mishandled user data—and that these statements were likely to deceive consumers. The court, however, found no evidence that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Under Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014), a plaintiff must show that its injury is “proximately caused” by the defendant’s false advertising. The court ruled that “generalized reputational harm is insufficient” to satisfy this requirement.

The court also noted that Plaintiffs’ own evidence undermined their claim. Customer exit surveys cited reasons for leaving—such as cost, billing issues, and privacy concerns—but did not link those decisions to Defendants’ conduct. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ expert witness attributed economic harm to the meme’s general online presence. The court concluded that without evidence of defendant-specific harm or altered consumer behavior, Plaintiffs could not establish the proximate causation required under the Lanham Act.

Tortious Interference with Business Relationships (Florida Law)

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants tortiously interfered with their business relationships under Florida law by inducing customers and designers to abandon DEFCAD. The complaint contended that the defendants’ dissemination of the "FEDCAD meme"—which falsely claimed DEFCAD had been hacked and that the plaintiffs mishandled user data—disrupted these relationships, causing economic harm. The court, however, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite elements of the claim.

The order emphasized that a tortious interference claim under Florida law requires proof of proximate causation, actual damages, and a legally cognizable business relationship. As the court noted, citing Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of such a relationship to support the claim. The plaintiffs identified no specific business relationship that qualified under this standard. Customer exit surveys cited reasons for leaving—such as cost, billing issues, or privacy concerns—but none linked those decisions to the defendants’ conduct. The court further observed that "the mere hope that some of its past customers may choose to buy again cannot be the basis for a tortious interference claim."

The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ actions proximately caused any harm. The court found no evidence that the defendants knew the identities of DEFCAD subscribers or customers, a critical gap in establishing a causal link. While a designer declared that he stopped uploading designs to DEFCAD due to the online campaign, his testimony did not connect the defendants’ conduct to any broader customer behavior (Compl. ¶ Goldhaber (DE 157)). Similarly, the plaintiffs’ expert witness, Jason Tyra, attributed economic harm to the meme’s general online presence but did not analyze interference with specific relationships or identify customers who saw the meme (Compl. ¶ Tyra (DE 147-8)).

Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ republication of the meme created an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation required for liability. The order explained, citing Miller v. Sconyers and Paroline v. United States, that "an intervening cause is any cause which breaks the chain of causation from original negligent act" and that "to say that one event was a proximate cause of another means that it was not just any cause, but one with a sufficient connection to the result." Without evidence of a direct link between the defendants’ actions and the plaintiffs’ alleged harm, the court dismissed the claim via summary judgment.

Distinctive Pleadings: Customer Surveys, Expert Testimony, and Intervening Causes

The court’s order granting summary judgment turned on three evidentiary gaps: customer surveys that never mentioned the defendants, an expert report that failed to tie economic harm to the defendants’ conduct, and the plaintiffs’ own republication of the contested meme.

Plaintiffs’ customer exit surveys listed reasons for leaving DEFCAD—cost, billing, privacy—but none linked those decisions to the defendants or the “FEDCAD meme.” As the court noted in ¶9, “Plaintiffs’ surveys do not reference any Defendant or identify consumers acting due to Defendants’ conduct.” The surveys cited reasons for cancellations, including cost, billing, and privacy concerns, but provided no evidence that the defendants’ actions influenced these decisions.

The plaintiffs’ expert witness, Jason Tyra, submitted a report attributing economic harm to the meme’s “general online presence,” but the court found it did not analyze whether any customer altered behavior because of the defendants’ specific actions. As noted in ¶ Tyra (DE 147-8), the report did not identify any subscriber who canceled or declined to purchase due to the defendants’ conduct.

The court also ruled that plaintiffs’ republication of the FEDCAD meme—uploaded to DEFCAD by a plaintiff employee—created an intervening cause that broke the causal chain required for liability. The order explained in ¶10, citing relevant case law, that an intervening cause is any event that severs the connection between the original act and the alleged harm. The plaintiffs did not dispute that they republished the meme, and the republication created a new, independent source of harm that severed any link between the defendants’ conduct and the plaintiffs’ alleged damages. The court reiterated that "to say that one event was a proximate cause of another means that it was not just any cause, but one with a sufficient connection to the result" (Paroline, ¶10).

Relief Sought and Procedural Posture: Summary Judgment Granted in Full

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (DE 147) in Defense Distributed, et al. v. John Elik, et al., seeking dismissal of all claims asserted by plaintiffs Defense Distributed and DD Foundation. The court granted the motion in full on July 1, 2026, entering an order that disposed of the case without trial.

The court dismissed plaintiffs’ civil RICO conspiracy claim and their false advertising claim under the Lanham Act as a matter of law. The order states that plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause or a qualifying predicate act for either claim. Plaintiffs’ third claim, tortious interference with business relationships under Florida law, was dismissed via summary judgment. The court found no evidence that defendants’ conduct proximately caused plaintiffs’ alleged economic harm, no legally cognizable business relationship, and no customer behavior linked to defendants’ actions. The order directs that judgment be separately entered.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document. The case file does not provide any specific dollar figure or percentage of economic harm attributable to the defendants’ actions, and this absence is noted in the court’s analysis.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.