Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Court assessed whether Dan Bilzerian breached fiduciary duties by launching a competing vape brand after his removal as CEO and director.

• Territorial competence of the British Columbia Supreme Court was challenged but upheld, based on corporate incorporation and legal precedents.

• Plaintiff needed to meet a “strong prima facie case” threshold for injunctive relief due to the nature of the alleged competitive conduct.

• Evidence showed Bilzerian’s deep brand integration with Ignite and misuse of social media assets, contributing to alleged harm.

• The Court found irreparable harm likely if competition continued, including potential loss of market share and brand damage.

• A worldwide injunction was granted to prevent further competition pending trial, given global reach of online marketing.

Facts of the Case

This case stems from a breakdown in the business relationship between Ignite International Brands, Ltd. ("Ignite")—a British Columbia-based company in the vape product industry—and Dan Bilzerian, a well-known social media figure and the company’s former CEO, chairman, and sole director.

Ignite sued Bilzerian in the British Columbia Supreme Court, alleging he breached his fiduciary duties by launching a competing vape brand after being removed from his executive roles. The company claimed that Bilzerian used confidential information, wrongfully retained control of Ignite's Instagram account, and misused his public persona—long associated with the Ignite brand—to promote a rival business.

Bilzerian had been instrumental in developing Ignite’s brand identity. Through a licensing agreement, his name, likeness, and social media influence were heavily used to promote Ignite’s products, making the brand closely linked with his personal image. Over $43 million was spent on social media marketing content, much of which tied Ignite’s identity to Bilzerian’s persona.

In June 2024, Bilzerian was removed from his executive roles. Despite contesting his removal through litigation and attempting reinstatement, he formed SAVH LLC, which launched a vape brand called Sex Addict—in direct competition with Ignite. He promoted these products using his own social media presence, which had also been a core part of Ignite’s marketing approach.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

1. Territorial Competence

Bilzerian argued that the British Columbia court lacked jurisdiction because he resided in Las Vegas, and Ignite’s business operations were primarily in the U.S. However, the court found it had territorial competence because:

• Ignite is incorporated under British Columbia law.

• Bilzerian voluntarily served as a director of a B.C. company.

• Fiduciary duties are defined by the laws of the province of incorporation, and breaches are considered to have occurred there.

2. Injunction Standard

Ignite applied for an injunction to prevent Bilzerian from continuing his competitive activities. Since the injunction would restrict Bilzerian’s livelihood (as a social media marketer of vape products), the court applied a “strong prima facie case” threshold, rather than the usual “serious question to be tried” standard.

3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The court found Ignite had met the strong prima facie case threshold. Key factors:

• Bilzerian was a fiduciary who had access to confidential information and played a central role in building Ignite’s brand.

• Despite being removed as CEO, he attempted to be reinstated while simultaneously launching a competing product.

• His new company benefited from his former role and branding with Ignite—an opportunity that courts generally protect companies from when fiduciaries leave and compete.

4. Irreparable Harm

Ignite argued it would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. The court agreed, noting that loss of market share, dilution of brand identity, and misuse of its investment in Bilzerian’s image could not be adequately compensated by damages alone.

5. Balance of Convenience

The court concluded that preserving the status quo was more equitable. Bilzerian could still earn income through other ventures, whereas Ignite risked lasting damage to its brand and business. Additionally, Bilzerian had been found in contempt in a related matter for failing to return control of Ignite’s Instagram account, raising concerns about his compliance with future court orders.

Outcome

Justice Latimer of the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a worldwide interlocutory injunction preventing Dan Bilzerian from competing with Ignite, either directly or indirectly, until the matter is resolved at trial. The injunction prohibits:

• Contacting Ignite’s distributors, manufacturers, or retailers.

• Promoting any vape product other than Ignite’s.

• Allowing his new company, SAVH LLC, to manufacture or sell vape products.

• Using imagery developed for Ignite in any promotional materials.

The court also affirmed its in personam jurisdiction over Bilzerian, relying on legal principles that allow global injunctive relief when a court has proper jurisdiction and the conduct in question causes harm in the court’s home territory.

Ignite was ordered to provide an undertaking as to damages, a standard requirement for injunctions, and both parties were instructed to proceed to trial at the earliest opportunity.