Kenny Chesney Not Liable for Fan’s $310,000 Impersonator Scam, Appeals Court Rules

Kenny Chesney cannot be held liable for a fan’s $310,000 loss to an online impersonator, a California appeals court has ruled, rejecting claims that the country star had a legal duty to warn followers that scammers were using his identity.

The California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of Patricia Linson’s claims against Chesney on Aug. 11. Linson sued after sending $310,000 to someone she believed was the singer, arguing that Chesney knew or should have known about impersonation scams targeting his fans and failed to warn them.

The scam began in 2021 when someone posing as Chesney contacted Linson through LinkedIn and claimed to be experiencing financial problems. The impersonator asked for money to cover an awards show appearance, damaged musical instruments, music videos, and other expenses.

Linson eventually sent the money to another person she was told was Chesney’s business partner. She never recovered the funds or learned the identity of the person posing as the singer.

Her lawsuit also alleged that the impersonator knew details about Chesney’s upcoming concerts and unreleased projects that had not yet been made public. Linson argued that someone connected to the singer may have supplied the information and sought to hold Chesney responsible for failing to prevent an employee from participating in the scheme.

A Los Angeles County judge dismissed the claims against Chesney. The appeals court agreed that Linson had not established a legal duty requiring him to protect her from the actions of the impersonator.

California law generally does not require someone to protect another person from criminal conduct by a third party unless a recognized relationship or other circumstances create that responsibility. The appellate panel found that the relationship between a celebrity and a fan did not create that obligation.

Linson argued that celebrity impersonation scams have become common enough that public figures who know their identities are being misused should be required to warn their followers. She pointed to entertainers who have posted public warnings about similar schemes.

The court declined to impose that duty. While acknowledging that technology has made impersonation easier and more sophisticated, the judges found that requiring celebrities to continually warn fans about third-party scams would extend liability beyond existing California law.

The panel also rejected Linson’s claims involving the unidentified person she alleged may have been connected to Chesney. The court found that the allegations did not establish that someone working for the singer participated in the fraud or that Chesney should be held responsible for the conduct.

Linson’s attorney, Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy, said she and her client disagree with the ruling and believe the law should better account for the way online impersonation scams operate. She argued that businesses should not escape responsibility for warning customers about known risks simply because the alleged fraud occurs online.

The ruling applies only to Linson’s claims against Chesney and does not decide the liability of the unidentified impersonator or any alleged accomplice. The appeals court also ordered Linson to pay Chesney’s costs associated with the appeal.

The Aug. 11 decision was not certified for publication. It resolves Linson’s appeal but generally cannot be cited or relied on as precedent in other California cases.