Daymond John Takes Legal Action Against Former “Shark Tank” Contestants

Celebrity investor Daymond John has taken legal action against former “Shark Tank” contestants, the Baker family. The family, who had once appeared on the popular business reality television series in which John is an investor, recently accused him of deceptive practices and publicly criticized him on social media. 

Now John has filed a lawsuit and is seeking a restraining order against the Bakers.

According to the Baker family, their experience working with Daymond John was nothing short of a “nightmare.” In social media posts, they claimed that John misled them, stole their profits, and prevented them from accessing lucrative opportunities related to their business, Bubba Q’s Boneless Baby Back Ribs. 

The family even went so far as to disclose the details of their “Shark Tank” business deal.

However, John vehemently denied the allegations, addressing the legal action in a statement to Fox News Digital through spokesperson Zach Rosefield.

Rosefield expressed John’s disappointment that the situation had escalated to this point and stated, “This temporary restraining order is due to the Baker’s blatant actions to undermine a business partnership and the legal parameters they agreed to 4 years ago.”

John specifically seeks a restraining order against Al “Bubba” Baker, his wife Sabrina, and their daughter Brittani, who continues to publicize their grievances on social media. In her posts, Brittani has shared multiple email communications and a recorded audio conversation between her and John, where he seemingly dismisses their concerns.

The roots of this dispute date back to 2015 when the Bakers presented their boneless baby back ribs on the fifth season of “Shark Tank.” The family alleges that John’s initial offer of $300,000 for a 30 percent stake in the company was modified off-air to $100,000 for 35 percent.

They also claim that they only received 4 percent of the $16 million in revenue generated by their business.

John, on the other end, expressed his frustration with the Bakers’ persistent violation of a confidentiality agreement in a social media video, labeling the claims a “false narrative.”

A federal judge in New Jersey dismissed the case without prejudice due to jurisdictional issues. However, John’s legal action against the family might not be over as he could refile the suit in a different jurisdiction. 

Due to the ongoing legal proceedings and the constraints of the confidentiality agreement, John was unable to provide further details on the matter. As this legal battle unfolds, both sides are steadfast in their positions, and it remains to be seen how the case will ultimately be resolved.