What the Lawsuit Alleged
Flo Rida, whose legal name is Tramar Dillard, sued the energy-drink company Celsius Holdings in Broward County, Florida, through his companies. He alleged that Celsius breached an endorsement agreement that ran from 2014 to 2018, under which he was promised equity in the company, including stock and performance bonuses, if the brand hit certain sales benchmarks. He argued he was instrumental in taking Celsius from obscurity to a household name through his videos, concerts, and social media.
Celsius disputed the claim, arguing at trial that the sales benchmarks had not been met and that it owed nothing further, including a dispute over how a key contract term should be defined. The case therefore turned on contract interpretation and whether the conditions for the equity had been satisfied.
The $82.6 Million Verdict
In January 2023, a Broward County jury sided with Flo Rida, finding that Celsius had breached the contract, and awarded approximately 82.6 million dollars. The award was based largely on the number of shares the jury found he was owed, valued at the stock price around the time of trial. Flo Rida celebrated the verdict publicly, framing it as getting only what he had worked for.
It was one of the larger celebrity-endorsement verdicts in Florida, but it was not the end of the story, because Celsius had the right to appeal.
Why the Number Is Not Final
Celsius appealed, and in late 2024 a Florida appeals court ruled that the trial court had erred in how it instructed the jury on damages, specifically on whether the shares should be valued at the time of trial or at the time of the alleged breach. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court to address the damages, while affirming other aspects without comment.
The practical effect is that the finding that Celsius breached the contract stood, but the 82.6 million dollar figure was not final and was set to be recalculated. The final amount could end up higher or lower once interest, fees, and the corrected damages measure are applied, so the headline number should be read as the jury award, not a settled payout.
How to Get Legal Help
This case turned on the wording of an endorsement contract, specifically a promise of equity tied to sales benchmarks. If you are an influencer or brand partner offered stock or performance bonuses, the lesson is to define the benchmarks and the valuation method precisely, since that is exactly what the dispute and the appeal came down to.
To follow any further developments in this case, bookmark this page and subscribe to LawsuitWatch alerts.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
Flo Rida Lawsuit: The $82.6 Million Celsius Verdict: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What was the Flo Rida lawsuit about?
Flo Rida sued Celsius Holdings for breaching a 2014 to 2018 endorsement deal that allegedly promised him equity, including stock and bonuses, if sales benchmarks were met. Celsius argued the benchmarks were not met and that it owed nothing further.
How much did the jury award?
In January 2023 a Broward County jury found Celsius breached the contract and awarded approximately 82.6 million dollars, based largely on the number of shares the jury found Flo Rida was owed, valued near the time of trial.
Is the $82.6 million final?
No. Celsius appealed, and in late 2024 a Florida appeals court found an error in the damages jury instruction and sent the case back to recalculate damages. The breach finding stood, but the dollar figure was not final.
Why does the valuation date matter?
Because the award was based on share value, the date used to value those shares, trial date versus breach date, can change the amount substantially. That valuation question is what the appeal turned on.
What is the lesson for endorsement deals?
Define performance benchmarks and the method and date for valuing any promised equity precisely, since the dispute and the appeal both came down to exactly those terms.