New allegations against influencers: Kliemann messed with art auctions


Exclusive

As of: 06/20/2022 7:15 p.m

Fynn Kliemann auctioned digital works of art for more than 200,000 euros. But because he is after contrasts-Research did not adhere to his own auction conditions, he could be threatened with claims for damages.

If he wants something, it has to happen immediately, says Fynn Kliemann about himself. He is an influencer, musician, entrepreneur. In an interview with the industry magazine “t3n” in March 2021, he advertises his latest project. Kliemann wants to sell 99 digital artworks, short pieces of music he recorded with his producer. His fans should bid on these via an online auction platform.

The special feature: Kliemann offers the pieces of music as virtual goods, so-called non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Buyers should pay in a cryptocurrency. That sounds particularly modern, Kliemann will later write in his own internet blog that he thinks it’s cool to be the first to sell music as NFT. In an interview with the marketing website “OMR” at the time, Kliemann said that the pieces of music were “actually finished advertising jingles” that he could sell elsewhere for 1,000 to 50,000 euros. It is clear to him that there is a lot of money at stake. research of ARD-political magazine contrasts show, however, that the entrepreneur was anything but conscientious in the auctions.

Complaint about “reporters gone wild”

The auctions are now more than a year ago, Kliemann was recently in the media with a different topic. The “ZDF Magazin Royale” with Jan Böhmermann had uncovered inconsistencies in the sale of masks that Kliemann had advertised. Kliemann publicly stated that he was unaware of these inconsistencies. Most recently, he complained in a PR video on Instagram about a “woke, left-wing scene” and reportedly wild reporters.

There were also inconsistencies in the NFT auctions. To contrastsAccording to calculations, he sold his collection with the name “JingleBe” for a total of around 215,000 euros, based on the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency at the time. Almost a third of this sum came about because in many cases he did not comply with the auction conditions he had previously set himself.

Kliemann accepted bids after the deadline

The highest bidder will be awarded the contract on Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 8 p.m. This website still exists today, but the condition has since been removed.

One of the people who wanted to bid on one of the pieces of music that Sunday evening was computer scientist Fabian K. He turned himself in contrasts as a “crypto investor”. He bid for the digital work of art in the hope that its value would increase in the long term as a result of Kliemann’s popularity.

At 7:58 p.m. Fabian K. bids the equivalent of 573 euros for a piece of music, at 8 p.m. sharp he is ahead. Actually, the NFT should now belong to him. But then new bids come in, the price goes up and up. Kliemann did not end the auction for this piece of music until 9 p.m. The bid he finally accepts is more than double that of Fabian K.

The NFT market is a business

Like Fabian K., many other bidders felt the same way that evening. For at least 84 NFTs, Kliemann confirms bids that are only received after 8 p.m. and are above the highest bid of 8 p.m. – i.e. according to Kliemann’s previously announced auction conditions, should not have been allowed at all. Occasionally he also accepts bids that are below the highest bid of 8 p.m.

calculations from contrasts revealed: Because Kliemann accepted the highest bids that had been received after the previously announced deadline, he increased sales by around 68,000 euros.

The NFT market may cater to art lovers, but it is first and foremost a business. “My first thought was: I was tricked,” says Fabian K. today. contrasts There are emails that he wrote to Kliemann in March and April 2021, in which he complained that he had been wrongly outbid.

Kliemann admits mistakes

Kliemann replied to the first email. “I’m really sorry. You’re absolutely right.” Several people complained on Twitter. There, the influencer defended himself that the time of individual bids had not been shown to him at all. However, it can be proven that there were definitely ways to check the times of the bids seriously, for example via the auction platform’s programming interface.

In a blog post at the time, Kliemann indicated that not everything went smoothly when determining the auction winner, the extent was not mentioned. Today he has his lawyer justify his actions. This one writes contrasts, Kliemann entered new territory with the auction.

Some bids were invalid when he wanted to confirm them. Above all, however, Kliemann believed that he could end all auctions at 8 p.m. in one fell swoop. When asked, however, the operators of the auction platform informed him that sellers would have to confirm all highest bids individually and manually. Kliemann’s lawyer emphasizes that Kliemann did not anticipate this problem in advance. Kliemann clicked through auction after auction that Sunday evening and apparently made mistake after mistake.

Claim for the NFT or damages

contrasts has spoken to several lawyers specializing in NFTs about the case. “If the auction was announced accordingly, the person who was the highest bidder at 8 p.m. has a civil right to receive the NFT,” says Katharina Garbers-von Boehm from the law firm Büsing Müffelmann & Theye.

It’s too late for that now, some pieces of music have since been resold for even more money. According to Pascal Decker, a partner at the law firm dtb, those who were cheated would be entitled to compensation, depending on the market value of the NFTs. Decker does not accept Kliemann’s excuses. “It doesn’t matter if you apologize afterwards for something you allegedly didn’t know any better before, when you could have known it more easily: the liability remains.”

Those affected would have to take action against Kliemann themselves. At the time, Fabian K. decided against hiring a lawyer. Instead, he suggested to Kliemann by e-mail that he should give back the additional income generated by the mistake, for example donating it to a charitable organization. But the entrepreneur did not reply to that.

source site