Gomez lawyers seek dismissal in Wondermind fraud suit, calling claims 'absurd'

Key points

• Gomez’s lawyers filed a motion in Delaware federal court on Aug. 27 to dismiss all four claims against her, including securities fraud and breach of contract.
• The motion argues Gomez was retained as a consultant with the title of Chief Impact Officer, not as a board member or manager, and did not personally make the alleged false statements to investors.
• The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by Wondermind SRS 44 LLC and Bespoke Wondermind SPV I LLC, alleges the founders promised a phone app, advertising deals, and celebrity content that never materialized.
• Plaintiffs claim they invested nearly $1.2 million in 2021 based on misrepresentations of the company’s leadership and financial health, which they say collapsed after investigative reports in 2025.
• Gomez’s attorney Mathew S. Rosengart called the allegations 'absurd' and 'frivolous,' stating she never agreed to manage the company or hold a minority stake, contrary to some investor claims.

Background

Wondermind, co-founded by Gomez and her mother Mandy Teefey in 2021, was marketed as a 'mental health ecosystem.' Previous coverage noted allegations that the company failed to pay employees and vendors, with Teefey reportedly taking a loan against her home to cover payroll. The current dispute follows earlier reports by Forbes and The Cut in 2025 that exposed the company’s financial turmoil and lack of viable business plans, which investors say they were not informed about until those stories broke.

How outlets are covering it

NBC News highlights Gomez’s legal team’s argument that she was not a board member and did not make the specific false statements alleged in the complaint, emphasizing the 'absurd' nature of the claims. Stereogum focuses on the plaintiffs’ perspective, citing a lawyer who stated Gomez was 'the pitch' for investors, suggesting her public image was central to securing the $1.2 million investment. While NBC News notes the motion argues Gomez held no minority stake, Stereogum quotes the motion itself stating she 'invested in and holds a minority stake,' highlighting a potential discrepancy in the legal arguments or the interpretation of her role. Both outlets agree that the lawsuit seeks to rescind investments and obtain damages, but differ in emphasis on the degree of Gomez’s personal involvement versus her symbolic value to the startup.

Why it matters

The case tests the legal liability of celebrity founders who serve in advisory or symbolic roles rather than operational ones. If the court dismisses the claims against Gomez, it may set a precedent for distinguishing between a public figure’s endorsement and active management in startup fraud cases. The outcome could also impact how investors assess the credibility of celebrity-backed ventures and the extent to which founders can be held liable for misrepresentations made by co-founders.

What to watch

The Delaware federal court will review the motion to dismiss, which seeks to drop all four claims against Gomez with prejudice. If the judge denies the motion, the case may proceed to discovery or trial. Gomez’s attorneys have indicated they are exploring other avenues of relief, including potential sanctions against the plaintiffs for improperly including her in the suit. The other defendants, Mandy Teefey and Daniella Pierson, have not responded to requests for comment, though Pierson previously denied wrongdoing and offered to provide financial records.