A few weeks ago, we learned that the Sugar Daddy website, which bills itself as the world’s largest sugar daddy network, was facing a lawsuit.
The site has since taken the unprecedented step of issuing a public apology, but the story was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to the controversy that was brewing.
At least one major company is suing the website, and a dozen others are reportedly looking into similar claims.
We got in touch with the SugarDaddy team to get their side of the story, but they refused to be interviewed.
Instead, they sent Polygon an email that was sent after we contacted the SugarDaddies lawyer, Paul Loomis.
In the email, the Sugardad team said they’ve decided to remove the website and remove the claims that the site is run by a “SugarDaddy.”
We were able to obtain a copy of the email.
They also say that they “strongly oppose” the claims made in the lawsuit.
Polygon contacted Loomiscas office, but he did not return a request for comment.
The lawsuit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California.
It alleges that SugarDaddy is in violation of federal and California law, and the claims against the website are “frivolous, false, and misleading.”
According to the complaint, the website is a pyramid scheme, in which sugar daddy clients receive a commission on the sale of their wares through a network of websites that include a “sugardaddy” (or “sugarpodder”).
The SugarDaddy website includes the following disclaimer: “Sugarpods are not sugar daddy services.
They are not agents of a sugar daddy.
Their services are for informational purposes only.”
SugarDaddy’s lawyers argue that the website was not an “agent” of a “gold digger” or “gold mine” as the website’s description implies.
SugarDaddy also maintains that the company has never paid a penny for its services.
“There is no evidence that the sugardaddy service is a sugardaddie service,” the Sugardaddy team states in the complaint.
“The claims in the suit are patently false and misleading and seek to undermine the Sugar daddy brand.”
The SugarDaddy team also claims that there are no “legitimate concerns” about the content of the website.
“Sucrepods and their sugar daddy agents are not legitimate marketers and are not in any way associated with the sugar daddies,” the complaint states.
“They are a ‘fake sugar daddy service’ that uses their own words and images for their own purposes.”
Loomisi also disputes the allegations.
“No one at SugarDaddy has ever been a sugar daddy or a gold digger,” he said.
“None of the Sugar daddys agents have ever worked for Sugar Daddy.
It is not clear whether these claims are based on fact or fiction.”
The lawsuit also accuses the SugarDad website of violating California’s Fair Use doctrine.
That law allows for “commercial uses without permission,” and the Sugar Daddies lawyers argue the Sugaraddy website’s “commercial use” is not authorized under the law.
“This is a lawsuit that has no merit, and is in desperate need of serious investigation,” Loomi wrote.
We reached out to the SugarDaads lawyers for comment, but did not hear back by the time of publication.
We will update this story if and when we hear back.
The SugarDaems lawyers also did not respond to our request for additional information about the lawsuit and why the company was willing to remove a website that has been around since 2011.