LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Daymond John, the renowned entrepreneur and investor known for his appearance on the popular TV show 'Shark Tank’, made headlines after initiating legal action against the Baker family, former contestants of the same show. In recent developments, John has been granted a temporary restraining order against the three former Baker family contestants, according to court papers.
The Baker family, which includes ex-NFL defensive end Al "Bubba" Baker, his wife Sabrina, and their daughter Brittani, allegedly engaged in a series of social media attacks, publicly criticizing their supposed "nightmare" experience with John during their appearance on the reality TV show in 2014. The order, issued in New Jersey federal court on Friday, July 21, strictly prohibits the Bakers from making further public statements about their interactions with John.
The Bakers caused reputational damage to Daymond John
Following the family's allegations regarding their business dealings with him, John took legal action and filed a lawsuit against them, subsequently seeking a restraining order. The Bakers allegedly accused John of engaging in deceptive practices, benefiting from their joint venture, and impeding potential opportunities that arose after they participated in the TV show. These accusations led to a legal dispute and the issuance of a restraining order to prevent further public statements about the matter.
In his ruling, District Judge Robert Kugler noted that all Baker family members' social media posts were overwhelmingly negative and disparaging, having the potential to harm the reputation, goodwill, and credibility of both DF Ventures (the entity set up by Daymond John for business dealings) and John himself. The judge acknowledged that the social media posts had already caused reputational damage to John, requiring him to address and counter the impact on his image.
Daymond John was called a dodgy businessman by the Bakers
During their appearance on 'Shark Tank' Season 5, the Bakers accepted an on-air offer from John, wherein he proposed a $300,000 investment in their boneless ribs company for a 30% stake. However, the family claimed it was later changed off-air to a $100,000 investment in exchange for a larger 35% stake. Taking to social media, the Bakers expressed their grievances and accused John of being an unscrupulous businessman, among other allegations. In his ruling, the judge raised doubts about the Bakers' motives, indicating that the court could only interpret their actions as not belonging to a genuine desire to improve their business.
