This legal analyst does a good job of breaking down the lawsuit:
Grant Cardone: Genius or Scammer?
Description below video:
Is Grant Cardone a real estate genius, a master marketer, or something else entirely?In this video, I break down Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC, the ongoing lawsuit involving Grant Cardone, Cardone Capital, and statements concerning projected 15 percent investor returns. We examine the allegations, Cardone’s actual statements, the procedural history, the arguments on both sides, and what could happen as the case moves toward trial.This video is based on publicly available court filings, judicial opinions, deposition testimony, and Grant Cardone’s own public statements. The allegations remain disputed and have not been proven at trial.
AI-generated summary of video:
This video breaks down the ongoing securities class-action lawsuit
Pino v. Cardone Capital, walking through its unusual four-year procedural history and where the case stands today. The suit was originally filed in September 2020 by investor Luis Pino (later continued by his daughter Christine after his death in 2023) against Grant Cardone, Cardone Capital, and two of its real estate investment vehicles, Cardone Equity Fund 5 and Fund 6. These funds, offered under SEC Regulation A+, raised roughly $50 million each from non-accredited retail investors — the "everyday guy" Cardone marketed to on social media and YouTube.
The core allegations fall into three buckets: (1) Cardone publicly promised a 15% annualized return and referred to himself as "Nostradamus," despite the SEC having told him in 2018 to remove that same projection from the official offering circular because the funds had no operating history to support it; (2) after quietly complying with the SEC in the formal paperwork, Cardone allegedly kept making the same 15% claim in YouTube videos and Instagram ads without disclosing the SEC's objection; and (3) an Instagram post allegedly implied Cardone personally covered the funds' debt, when in fact investor money served that debt. Because these claims are brought under Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 rather than traditional fraud statutes, the plaintiffs don't have to prove intent to defraud or individual reliance — only that a misleading statement was made in a "sale," which the courts ultimately found includes mass social media posts.
The procedural path has been a rollercoaster: the case was dismissed with prejudice in 2021, revived on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in December 2022 (which held that broad social media solicitation can count as a "sale"), dismissed again by the district court in October 2023, and reversed a second time by the Ninth Circuit in June 2025 under the Supreme Court's Omnicare standard, which requires plaintiffs to plausibly allege both "subjective falsity" (Cardone didn't believe his own numbers) and "objective falsity" (the numbers were actually wrong). The Ninth Circuit found the SEC letter and Cardone's reaction to it (removing the number from formal filings while continuing to publicize it) enough to let the case proceed to discovery. Cardone's petition asking the Supreme Court to intervene was denied in October 2023.
As of now, the case has been certified as a class action (March 2026) covering roughly 2,172+ Fund 5 investors and 1,322+ Fund 6 investors, with an opt-out deadline of July 14, 2026, and a jury trial scheduled for March 9, 2027. If plaintiffs prevail, the primary remedy is rescission — investors could return their shares for what they paid plus interest, minus distributions already received — though there's no fixed damages number yet. Notably, Cardone has been publicly posting clips of his own deposition and calling the lawsuit "frivolous," an unusual move the narrator suggests may hand plaintiffs' lawyers more ammunition.
Top 10 takeaways:
- It's a private civil suit, not an SEC enforcement action — brought by investor Luis (now Christine) Pino under Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which don't require proving fraudulent intent.
- The core claim: Cardone allegedly promoted a 15% annualized return (and specific IRR figures) via YouTube and Instagram without a reasonable basis for the projection.
- The SEC red flag: In 2018, SEC staff told Cardone to remove the 15% projection from Fund 5's official offering circular because the fund had no track record to support it.
- The alleged inconsistency: Cardone removed the number from formal SEC filings but kept using the same 15% figure in marketing — without disclosing the SEC's objection — which courts found suggestive of "subjective disbelief."
- Social media counts as a "sale": The Ninth Circuit held that broad, public social media posts can constitute solicitation under securities law, rejecting Cardone's argument that he never personally targeted Pino.
- "Control person" liability: Because Cardone personally controlled Cardone Capital (and took a 35% profit share), he can be held liable for the company's alleged violations under Section 15.
- Dismissed twice, revived twice: The case was thrown out by the district court in 2021 and again in 2023, but the Ninth Circuit reversed both dismissals (Dec. 2022 and June 2025).
- The Omnicare standard: To survive dismissal on the return-projection claim, plaintiffs had to plausibly show both that Cardone didn't believe the projection and that it was objectively false when made.
- Class certified, trial scheduled: The case is now a certified class action (2,172+ and 1,322+ investors from Funds 5 and 6 respectively), with a jury trial set for March 9, 2027.
- Potential remedy is rescission: Investors could recover what they paid plus interest minus distributions received, but only by tendering back their fund shares — there's no fixed damages figure yet, and the outcome remains undecided.
Luxury yacht booked
