In the News, On the Bar Exam: LeBron’s “The Second Decision” and the Law of Intentional Misrepresentation

LeBron James recently sent the sports world into a frenzy with what he called “The Second Decision.” Fans and media speculated for days. Was he finally retiring? Changing teams ... again?

The buzz built until the reveal: “The Second Decision.” wasn't not a basketball announcement at all, but a new advertising campaign with Hennessy.

Some fans felt duped, particularly those who paid premium prices to attend what they believed might be LeBron’s final game. One California resident and life-long Lakers fan, Andrew Garcia, even filed a complaint in a California small claims court alleging "fraud, deception, misrepresentation. and any and all basis of legal recovery."

Like any good law school professor, I want to turn this current event into a teaching moment. This post doesn’t weigh in on or evaluate the merits of Mr. Garcia’s claim. Rather, it simply uses the situation to illustrate and review one of the most frequently tested torts on the bar exam: intentional misrepresentation, also known as fraud.

Understanding Intentional Misrepresentation

At its core, intentional misrepresentation protects people from deliberate deception that leads to harm. The discussion below reflects generally applicable principles of law as tested on the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ multistate examinations (MBE and MEE), not any specific state’s law such as California’s. It requires proof of five elements, each of which must be satisfied:

A false representation of a material fact requires:

1. Knowledge of falsity (scienter)

   
   

2. Intent to induce reliance

   
   

3. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff

   
   

4. Damages resulting from that reliance

Let’s briefly explore each requirement, using the LeBron example to help illustrate where the boundaries lie.

1. False Representation of a Material Fact

A statement must concern an existing, objective fact that is material—something that would influence a reasonable person’s decision to act. Statements of opinion, prediction, or puffery usually do not qualify.

When LeBron teased a “big decision,” he didn’t make a concrete statement about retiring, changing teams, or even basketball. His words were ambiguous and promotional, not factual. For bar exam purposes, this illustrates the difference between actionable misrepresentation (false fact) and non-actionable puffery (vague hype).

2. Knowledge of Falsity

The defendant must know the representation is false or act with reckless disregard for its truth. Innocent mistakes or negligent misstatements do not rise to the level of fraud.

If LeBron deliberately crafted his teaser knowing that it would mislead fans into thinking he was announcing retirement or a major career move, that could satisfy this element. But as with many celebrity marketing stunts, theatrical exaggeration alone is rarely treated as a knowingly false statement of fact.

3. Intent to Induce Reliance

Fraud also requires that the defendant intend for others to rely on the false statement. The deception must be aimed at prompting the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting.

If LeBron intended fans to rely on his teaser and act on that belief—for example, by purchasing tickets in anticipation of his retirement—then intent to induce reliance could be satisfied. But if the teaser was simply designed to create buzz around a marketing reveal rather than to cause people to make a specific transaction based on a factual claim, proving this element becomes difficult.

4. Justifiable Reliance

The plaintiff must actually rely on the misrepresentation, and that reliance must be reasonable. Courts consistently hold that reliance on vague or promotional statements is not justified.

Even if fans believed LeBron was announcing retirement, the teaser never said so. A reasonable person would recognize the ambiguity and the modern reality of celebrity marketing. If LeBron’s fans claimed they relied on the teaser when buying tickets or memorabilia, courts would still ask whether that reliance was objectively reasonable given what was actually said. On the bar exam, always analyze whether the plaintiff’s reliance was objectively reasonable given the circumstances.

5. Damages

Finally, the plaintiff must show actual, compensable harm caused by the reliance. Fraud is not an abstract tort—it requires measurable loss. Emotional disappointment or annoyance is not enough.

Fans paying inflated ticket prices out of speculation still face a problem of proving legally compensable damages. Even though Mr. Garcia spent money, the law requires that damages be caused by a false factual statement. Because his purchase was based on speculation rather than reliance on any misrepresentation, courts might treat that expense as a voluntary choice rather than a recoverable loss.

---

Intentional misrepresentation is a precision tort. Each element must fit together: a knowingly false statement of material fact, made with intent to induce justified reliance that causes real harm. The law doesn’t punish clever marketing, hyperbole, or dramatic flair—it punishes deliberate factual deception that leads to concrete loss.